Watch Your ‘Lock’ Step!

In times where law firms across the world are undergoing an overhaul, law firm partnership structures are the foundation of how work, profits, and responsibility are shared. Among these structures, the Lockstep Model is often the most inquired-about as it stands out for its emphasis on teamwork, long-term commitment, and shared success. Popularised by large international law firms, the Lockstep Model offers stability and collaboration, but it also raises questions about whether it suits the dynamics of Indian law firms, with their diverse sizes and evolving priorities.

At its core, the Lockstep Model distributes partner compensation based on seniority and tenure, not individual performance. Partners accumulate "units" or "points" over time, starting with a smaller share of the firm's profits and gradually earning more as they gain seniority. Once a partner reaches the plateau stage—typically after 8–12 years—they hold the maximum share of profits available within the system. This structure ensures that partners who stay longer with the firm and contribute to its collective growth are rewarded generously, while junior partners are motivated to stay on the path to seniority. However, unlike performance-based systems, where high-billing Partners and rainmakers earn more, the Lockstep Model does not directly reward individual achievements.

Imagine an Indian law firm that allocates 1,000 units among its partners. The firm's annual profit is ₹100 crores, making each unit worth ₹10 lakhs.

1. A new partner starts, let’s assume, with 10 units (₹1 crore per year).

2. After 5 years, the partner earns 30 units (₹3 crores per year).

3. Upon reaching the plateau after 10 years, the partner holds 50 units (₹5 crores per year).

Regardless of how much revenue an individual partner generates, their compensation depends entirely on the firm's overall profit and their position in the lockstep.

The Lockstep Model is built on the principles of collaboration and long-term loyalty, making it especially effective for firms that prioritize collective growth over individual achievement.

1. Encourages Teamwork: Since partners are not competing for a larger share of profits, they are more likely to share clients, collaborate on cases, and mentor younger lawyers. This creates a cohesive environment where the focus shifts to the firm's overall success rather than personal gains.

2. Stability and Predictability: Partners in a lockstep firm enjoy a clear and predictable compensation trajectory. They know that their earnings will grow steadily as they advance, building a culture of loyalty and long-term commitment.

3. Attracts Long-Term Thinkers: Lockstep appeals to partners who value stability and are committed to the firm's long-term vision. The system creates an incentive to build strong client relationships that benefit the firm as a whole.

4. Reputation and Legacy: By emphasising collective success, lockstep firms often build strong brands and reputations. Leading global firms have thrived under this model, proving its efficacy in fostering trust and unity.

While the pure lockstep model rewards partners solely on seniority and tenure, many firms have adopted a more flexible system known as the modified lockstep model. This approach retains the benefits of seniority-based progression but introduces performance-based adjustments at specific points in a partner’s career. The key difference lies in the introduction of "gateways" — evaluation checkpoints where a partner’s progress up the lockstep ladder is assessed.

The modified lockstep allows firms to blend the best of both worlds: the predictability and teamwork of lockstep with the competitiveness of a performance-based model. Partners still accumulate units or points over time, but their progression is not guaranteed. At specific milestones (typically every 3–5 years), partners must clear a "gateway" to continue moving up the ladder. Gateways, therefore, serve as performance review checkpoints that partners must cross to continue earning more points or units. These gateways can be tailored to fit a firm's goals and common performance indicators would cover rainmaking, revenue contribution, mentorship and team leadership, and a partner’s active involvement in firm initiatives, branding, and internal governance. If a partner fails to meet expectations at a gateway, they may be kept at their existing point level, while more successful peers continue to progress. This prevents underperforming partners from climbing the pay ladder without merit. Conversely, high-performing partners can receive fast-track promotions through the lockstep, allowing them to reach the plateau earlier than their peers.

Despite its advantages, the Lockstep Model is not without flaws. Law firm management experts, across the world argue that it may stifle high performers and leave the firm vulnerable in a competitive legal market.

1. Limited Reward for Star Performers: The biggest criticism is that the Lockstep Model fails to adequately compensate rainmakers—partners who bring in significant business. If a superstar partner generates ₹50 crores in revenue but earns the same as a less-productive colleague, they might feel undervalued and leave for a firm with performance-based pay.

2. Dependency on Firm Profitability: Partner earnings are tied to the firm’s overall profit. In lean years, when profits fall, all partners suffer equally, even if some perform exceptionally well.

3. Not Agile for Market Dynamics: The Lockstep Model is less flexible in responding to market trends. As competition grows and clients demand cost-efficiency, firms may need to reward individual performance to retain top talent.

4. High Entry Barriers: For junior lawyers aspiring to enter the partnership, Lockstep systems can appear daunting. With compensation tied to tenure, it may take years before a new partner sees significant financial rewards, making entry into the system less attractive.

The Indian legal market is diverse, with firms ranging from boutique practices to large, full-service firms. The suitability of the Lockstep Model depends on a firm’s size, culture, and long-term goals.

Large Firms: A Good Fit?

For large firms touching 500+ lawyers, the Lockstep Model could be an excellent fit. These firms already have established brands and a client base that benefits from teamwork and collaboration. By aligning partner incentives with the firm's overall success, Lockstep could help such firms strengthen their reputation and retain talent. However, the intense competition among Indian firms for high-value clients may require a hybrid model, where lockstep is complemented by bonuses for exceptional performers. Law firm management experts and professionals who help in developing law practice management solutions are often engaged by such firms to curate hybrid models for such firms. Modified Lockstep with Gateways is particularly well-suited for large Indian firms, where partner performance varies significantly, but firms still want to maintain a sense of cohesion and shared responsibility. In the Indian legal sector, especially in times when we are witnessing partner movements in large firms, the modified lockstep provides an advantage. Rainmakers are rewarded earlier, while long-term contributors are assured a fair share of the firm’s profits.

Mid-Sized Firms: A Challenging Proposition

Mid-sized firms may find it harder to adopt lockstep because they often rely on a handful of high-performing partners to generate significant revenue. For these firms, a pure lockstep model could alienate top performers, pushing them to join larger firms or start their own practices. Instead, a modified lockstep, which rewards seniority but allows adjustments for performance, might be more viable. To retain rainmakers, law firm management professionals often advise law firms to offer bonuses on top of Lockstep earnings for partners who generate significant revenue or secure high-profile clients. They also suggest adjustments to Lockstep progression for exceptional performance. For instance, a high-performing partner might advance faster through the steps, earning more units sooner.

Boutique and Firms in Growth Stage: Unlikely to Work

Boutique firms specializing in niche areas like intellectual property or arbitration are often built around a few key partners. For such firms, a lockstep model is impractical because their success depends heavily on individual contributions rather than collective effort.

Implementing a lockstep model in a law firm involves significant challenges beyond just profit-sharing. It requires robust governance structures, such as a dedicated partnership committee and sophisticated business support teams to track performance and manage evaluations at gateway checkpoints. Issues such as de-equitisation of underperforming partners, the integration of lateral hires, and determining how long a partner stays at a gateway must be carefully managed. The model also demands a shift in firm culture towards transparency, trust, and collaboration. For Indian law firms, particularly those that are family-run or smaller in size, transitioning to a lockstep model may be difficult due to entrenched hierarchies, lack of structured governance, and the need to adapt to competitive compensation models. The model is better suited for larger, established firms with predictable revenue streams and stable partnership dynamics, while smaller firms may find it too rigid or difficult to scale effectively.

The Lockstep model represents a sophisticated approach to law firm management, emphasizing collaboration, loyalty, and long-term stability. While it has proven successful for global firms, its adoption in India requires thoughtful adaptation. Large Indian firms with established reputations may benefit from this structure, but they must be cautious about losing top talent to performance-based competitors. For mid-sized and boutique firms, a pure lockstep model is less practical, but hybrid systems offer a middle ground. As Indian law firms continue to grow and professionalize, the lockstep model could serve as a blueprint for creating a collaborative and unified partnership. However, its success depends on balancing tradition with the flexibility to reward individual contributions in a dynamic and competitive legal market.

About the authors: Bithika Anand is the Founder of Legal League Consulting.

Nipun K Bhatiaa is the CEO of the Company.