Not Every Great Attorney Should Be Paid the Same Way
One of the biggest mistakes I see law firms make is assuming every attorney should be compensated the same way.
Or more specifically:
Assuming every attorney should create value the same way.
They shouldn't.
And when firms force everyone into the same compensation structure, they often create unintended consequences that hurt:
collaboration
profitability
client experience
attorney satisfaction
growth
The reality is that attorneys bring value to a firm in very different ways.
The best compensation systems recognize that.
Not Every Attorney Has the Same Strengths
Some attorneys are exceptional at:
networking
relationship building
business development
bringing work into the firm
Others are exceptional at:
client communication
responsiveness
technical legal work
managing matters efficiently
And some attorneys are capable of doing both.
The problem occurs when firms ignore those differences and attempt to compensate everyone through the same formula.
The Three Types of Attorneys I See Most Often
While there are certainly exceptions, most attorneys tend to fall into one of three categories.
The Rainmaker
This attorney excels at generating business.
They:
build relationships
cultivate referral sources
attract opportunities
drive revenue growth
Without them, there may be less work for everyone else.
The Servicer
This attorney excels at delivering the work.
They:
manage client relationships
communicate effectively
produce strong legal work
create positive client experiences
Without them, clients don't stay.
The Hybrid
This attorney does both.
They originate business and service matters effectively.
Hybrids can be extremely valuable.
But they are also relatively uncommon compared to firms' expectations.
The Problem With One-Size-Fits-All Compensation
Many firms create compensation systems that assume every attorney should:
originate
service
supervise
grow business
manage relationships
In roughly equal proportions.
But that's not how most attorneys are wired.
And when compensation ignores natural strengths, attorneys often start behaving in ways that aren't beneficial to the firm.
Incentives Drive Behavior
People naturally focus on the activities that are rewarded.
Which means poorly designed compensation plans often create unintended behavior.
For example:
originators may hoard work they shouldn't be servicing
servicers may feel undervalued
collaboration may decline
clients may receive inconsistent experiences
Not because anyone is acting maliciously.
Because the incentives are encouraging the wrong outcomes.
A Real-World Example
I worked with a firm that had an attorney who was an outstanding originator.
They were excellent at:
building relationships
generating opportunities
bringing work into the firm
But they weren't as strong on the servicing side.
Client responsiveness wasn't always where it should be.
Attention to detail wasn't their greatest strength.
And yet, the compensation structure encouraged them to continue servicing a large portion of the work themselves.
The Incentives Were Backward
The attorney was spending time doing work that wasn't actually their highest-value contribution.
So we redesigned the compensation structure.
The new model placed significantly more emphasis on origination and significantly less emphasis on servicing.
The result was immediate.
What Happened Next
More work began flowing to senior attorneys whose strengths were in execution and client service.
The result was:
happier clients
improved responsiveness
stronger client retention
more repeat business
And surprisingly, profitability improved as well.
Why?
Because much of the servicing work was being performed by salaried attorneys instead of generating large amounts of variable service compensation.
The firm didn't increase revenue.
The firm increased alignment.
The Fastest-Growing Firms Understand This
The firms that scale most effectively rarely expect every attorney to look identical.
Instead, they identify:
who should originate
who should service
who can do both
And they align compensation accordingly.
When that happens:
collaboration improves
work flows more naturally
clients receive better service
profitability increases
This Doesn't Mean Everyone Gets a Different Formula
The goal isn't complexity for the sake of complexity.
The goal is recognizing that value can be created in different ways.
Compensation systems should acknowledge those differences while still supporting:
fairness
transparency
profitability
growth
The Real Question
Instead of asking:
"How should we pay our attorneys?"
Ask:
"How does each attorney create value for the firm?"
Because the answer to that question should heavily influence the compensation structure.
Controversial Truth
Not every great attorney should be paid the same way.
Because not every great attorney creates value the same way.
If your law firm's compensation structure is creating competition, limiting collaboration, or failing to align incentives with performance, it may be time to rethink how value is being rewarded.
I help law firms design compensation systems that align with attorney strengths, support profitability, and create the conditions for sustainable growth.