Some companies strive to address management issues by including a scholarship in the compensation of executive partners and group leaders of practitioners. However, the culture of EWYK companies tends to devalue management activities, so that executives rarely have to receive sufficient remuneration and defend what they receive in a sustainable way. I have seen small businesses self-destruct on the issue of executive compensation. In large EWYK companies with rotating management teams, the managing partner whose term ends often cannot survive financially on the return to full-time practice. After two to five years of abandoning customer relations activities or business development efforts in favour of the company`s interests, he takes a major hit if he only needs to eat what he kills. Even a scholarship for an additional two years, which some companies offer when a managing partner returns to full-time practice, may not be sufficient. “Eating what you kill” underlines the performance of each partner, but it does little to support the development of a competitive brand identity for the company. In “Eating What You Kill” companies, partners are more likely to say “my client” than “our customer.” To the extent that the firm pursues a consistent and consistent marketing strategy, it is generally based on the assumption, often repeated by partners, that “our clients hire the lawyer and not the company.” This approach could still apply to clients of retail law firms, which are smaller, generally local, law firms that provide relatively low legal services to individuals and small businesses. It is becoming less and less relevant to the engagement decisions of consumers demanding legal services who expect both a good lawyer and a law firm with the internal skills to support the partner and ensure the highest quality customer service. In other words, demanding clients today say more: “Lawyer or law firm? We`re going to put both on. Many high-level organizations, including Magic Circle Linklaters and Slaughter and May, have continued to use a Lockstep model, believing that its benefits far outweigh the disadvantages of a company`s overall performance and long-term health. Especially since the financial crisis of the late 2000s, which increased pressure on business lawyers and their clients, some companies have amended their lockstep agreements to include an element of performance-related compensation.
“The market pressure is definitely reflected,” Hanh says. “Companies need to pay attention to what their competitors are doing. Increasing competition in London, for example, from U.S. companies that want to reward individual performance and have influenced the approach of some companies. Both Young and O`Reilly argue that their companies` compensation systems give them an advantage over companies that take a more formal approach, which attaches great importance to personal billing.