Two partners, same firm, same seniority, sat down to compare year-end numbers once. They expected to be close. They weren't — not because either had a bad year, but because they were being paid under two different internal formulas without fully realizing it.
That's the part of a lateral move that rarely gets diligenced properly. Everyone asks "what's the comp like." Almost nobody asks "what's the model." And the model, more than almost anything else in an offer, determines whether a strong year actually shows up in your bank account.
Three Models, Three Very Different Bets
Most AmLaw 100 firms run on some version of three structures, and each one places a different bet on you.
Lockstep ties compensation to seniority and tenure, largely independent of individual origination. It rewards stability and predictability — you generally know what next year looks like — but it can undervalue a partner who's originating well above their tenure band, and it can quietly protect partners whose production has flattened.
Modified lockstep blends tenure with a performance or origination component, usually through a point system or discretionary adjustment layered on top of a lockstep base. This is where the real variation lives: two firms can both call themselves "modified lockstep" and mean very different splits between the fixed and variable pieces.
Eat-what-you-kill (origination-driven, sometimes called an "eat what you originate" model) ties comp closely to individual production and origination credit. It rewards rainmakers heavily and can pay very well for someone with a strong book — but it can also be brutal in a slow year, and it tends to reward hoarding origination credit over collaboration.
None of these is objectively better. The fit depends entirely on your practice, your book, and how much predictability you need versus how much upside you want to bet on yourself.
Questions Worth Asking Before You Assume You Understand the Number
A headline comp figure means very little without knowing how it's constructed. Before comparing offers, it's worth getting specific answers to:
- Is the model lockstep, modified lockstep, or origination-driven — and what's the actual split between the fixed and variable components?
- How is origination credit allocated on shared matters, and what happens to credit when a client relationship transfers with you from your old firm?
- Is there a guaranteed floor for a transition period, and for how long?
- How often does the compensation committee revisit the formula, and has it changed materially in the last several years?
Firms with a clean, well-understood model will walk through this without hesitation. Firms that get vague about the mechanics, or describe comp purely in terms of "it depends on the committee," are often signaling that the formula is more discretionary — and less predictable — than the headline number suggests.
The Number on the Offer Letter Is a Snapshot, Not a Formula
A strong offer under the wrong model can underperform a modest offer under the right one, especially over a multi-year horizon. Understanding the mechanics behind the number is what actually lets you compare two offers accurately — and it's usually the single most under-diligenced part of a lateral move.
This is the second in a four-part series on what lateral moves and partnership offers actually involve beyond the title and headline number. Sonder Consultants advises senior associates, counsel, and partners across the US, UK, Hong Kong, and Australia on moves like these — reach out if you'd like a confidential read on a specific offer.
