Last year a number of firms mooted changing the assessment criteria for lawyers coming up through the ranks. Firms such as Pinsents are keen to introduce broader considerations into the progression equation than just billable hours and PQE. Proposed changes will target the associate lockstep system with a view to replacing it with ‘merit-based’ criteria and ‘objectively’ achieved milestones.

Sounds sensible enough but there is suspicion that more opaque performance criteria will simply give firms greater scope to restrain salaries and bonuses. Individual firms did not confirm that new career milestones will be linked to pay but what the hell is the benefit of a better title on your business card if it isn’t accompanied by a bigger number on your pay slip?

The suspicion is reinforced by the timing of proposals (the weakest bargaining power associates have had for nearly a decade). And a new survey revealed by the Lawyer won’t alleviate concerns:

Bonus payments for partners below equity level are based more on recorded and billed hours than on business development and competency-based ­performance, according to legal recruiters.

A good time for innovation:

Firms have increasingly turned to ­innovative benefit packages for employees in a bid to offset declining pay packets.

And interestingly enough:

It also shows that non-equity ­partners’ bonuses were often far below the maximum available.

More>

So if the main performance criteria for salaried partners is still billable hours rather than business development and competency-based ­performance, and their discretionary bonuses are pitiful; it is unlikely that associates are going to enjoy greater gains in status and pay by swanning around networking events and being nice to trainees.