For generations of City lawyers, the path to partnership was relatively easy to understand, even if reaching the destination was anything but. Progress through the associate ranks, make partner and, eventually, build your position within the equity.
That model has been changing for some time. Counsel, salaried partner and non-equity partner roles are now familiar features of the market, while the distinction between titles, and what they actually mean for a lawyer's career, has become increasingly blurred.
A recent development at Kirkland & Ellis provides another example. The firm has promoted several London lawyers into a relatively new "senior income partner" tier, offering another route for senior lawyers who do not move directly from income partner into the equity. Fewer than ten London partners have reportedly entered the tier so far.
Kirkland is one firm, and its structure is distinctive. But the development speaks to a much broader question facing the London legal market: is the traditional path to partnership becoming less linear?
The Partnership Ladder Is Changing
The simple distinction between "associate" and "partner" no longer captures how many major law firms structure senior careers.
Depending on the firm, a lawyer might progress from Senior Associate to Counsel, Legal Director, Salaried Partner, Non-Equity Partner or another internally defined position before reaching equity partnership. Even within the same title, the economics, expectations and prospects for further progression can differ significantly.
This isn't limited to London. Across the Am Law 100, non-equity partner ranks grew by 7% in 2025, compared with 2% growth in equity partner numbers. Firms including Arnold & Porter and Sidley have introduced or changed income partner tiers, with recruitment, retention and giving lawyers more time to develop cited among the reasons for doing so.
For London, the trend is particularly interesting because of the mix of partnership cultures operating within the same market. Traditional UK firms, elite US firms and international firms can have very different approaches to equity, compensation and progression, yet they are competing for many of the same lawyers.
As those firms compete for senior talent, a single, predictable partnership ladder increasingly looks like the exception rather than the rule.
Why Are Firms Creating More Routes?
There are practical reasons why a less linear model can work for both firms and lawyers.
Not every exceptional senior lawyer fits the same mould. Some may be outstanding technical specialists or client-service partners without having the kind of portable book traditionally associated with equity partnership. Others may need more time to develop their business case, or may simply want a senior career that doesn't carry exactly the same expectations as an equity role.
For firms, alternative tiers provide another way to retain that talent.
Kirkland's senior income partner tier, for example, has been described as an alternative for valued senior lawyers who do not move into equity under the firm's traditional timeframe, including specialists and lawyers whose roles are more focused on client service than business generation. Crucially, it does not necessarily close the door to equity later.
There is also a commercial reality. Equity is valuable, and firms have an incentive to manage it carefully. Adding senior non-equity positions allows firms to recognise and retain experienced lawyers without automatically expanding the profit-sharing partnership.
That tension between creating genuine progression opportunities and protecting the economics of the equity is likely to remain an important part of how partnership structures evolve.
More Choice Doesn't Always Mean More Clarity
For lawyers, having more potential career paths can be a positive development. It creates room for careers that don't conform to one traditional definition of success and can give senior associates longer to establish themselves without facing an immediate partner-or-leave decision.
But more tiers also create more complexity.
A Counsel role at one firm might be a clear stepping stone to partnership. At another, it may be designed as a long-term destination. A salaried or non-equity partner could be firmly on track for equity, while someone with the same title elsewhere may have no defined route to it at all.
The same applies to compensation. The word "partner" does not necessarily tell you how someone is paid, whether they participate in profits, what business-development expectations they face or how much influence they hold within the firm.
This is why titles have become increasingly difficult to compare in isolation. A move that appears to be a promotion on paper isn't necessarily a better long-term opportunity, just as accepting a Counsel position instead of a Partner title isn't necessarily a backwards step.
The substance underneath the title matters more.
What Should Senior Lawyers Be Asking?
For a senior associate or counsel considering a move, understanding the firm's partnership structure should be part of the due diligence rather than something left until after joining.
If a role sits below the equity, what normally happens next? Is there a defined timeframe for progression? How many lawyers have actually made that transition in recent years? What distinguishes those who progress from those who remain at the same level? And is the position intended as a genuine route towards equity, or as a sustainable senior career in its own right?
Compensation matters too, but so does the platform underneath it. A lawyer hoping to build a business case for equity needs to understand whether the firm can provide the client exposure, internal referrals, business-development support and relationships required to do so.
There isn't necessarily a right or wrong structure. For some lawyers, a highly compensated non-equity role with excellent work and fewer origination pressures may be considerably more attractive than equity elsewhere. For others, ownership and a clearly defined route to the equity will remain the priority.
The important thing is knowing which one you're being offered.
A Different Definition of Progression
The London partnership market isn't abandoning equity, nor is the traditional route disappearing. For many lawyers, equity partnership will remain the ultimate ambition.
What is changing is the assumption that every successful senior lawyer needs to follow exactly the same path to get there.
As firms become larger, more specialised and more commercially complex, their partnership structures are becoming more varied too. That can create better options for lawyers whose careers don't fit neatly into the traditional model, while allowing firms to retain people they might otherwise lose.
It also, however, makes understanding the fine print increasingly important; for senior lawyers considering a move, the question is no longer simply "Will this make me a partner?"
It is: "What does being a partner at this firm actually mean — and where can it take me next?"
