Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=871094
 
 

Citations (3)



 
 

Footnotes (172)



 


 



An Empirical Study of Single-Tier Versus Two-Tier Partnerships in the Am Law 200


William D. Henderson


Indiana University Maurer School of Law

2006

North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 84, May 2006
Indiana Legal Studies Research Paper No. 29

Abstract:     
During the last decade, many of the nation's largest law firms have converted from single-tier to two-tier (or multi-tier) partnerships. A two-tier firm contains separate tracks for equity and nonequity partner. The equity tier typically controls the firm and enjoys a larger per capita share of the firm's profits. At present, two-tier partnerships make up 80 percent of Am Law 200. The conventional explanation for the growth of the two-tier system (or, conversely, the abandonment of the single-tier) is that it produces higher profits per equity partner (PPP), thus solidifying the prestige of the firm and improving its ability to attract the best legal talent. Drawing upon a comprehensive dataset of Am Law 200 firms, this study documents that average PPP is significantly higher in single-tier firms, even after controlling for geographic market segment and firm leverage. The higher profitability of single-tier firms appears to be a function of higher levels of reputational capital, which enable single-tier firms to (a) attract and retain a more lucrative client base, and (b) run a more rigorous promotion-to-partnership tournament.

Based upon a ten-year longitudinal sample, this study also found negligible statistical evidence that the two-tier structure, after controlling for relative starting position and geographic market, is associated with larger gains in PPP. In light of its uncertain financial benefits, the author theorizes that the two-tier structure is primarily a bonding mechanism used by less prestigious firms to institutionalize a marginal product method of partnership compensation and consolidate managerial control for the benefit of the firm's most powerful partners. Failure to switch to the two-tier structure leaves the firm vulnerable to defections and possible collapse. As a result, the primary economic benefit of the two-tier format may be firm stability rather than higher average PPP. Finally, this study provides some evidence that the appeal of permanent nonequity partnership status, which typically entails fewer professional demands, may set in a motion an adverse selection problem at the associate recruitment level, thus undermining some of the perceived benefits of a two-tier (or multi-tier) format.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 61

Keywords: Law firms, Am Law 100, Am Law 200, Partnerships

JEL Classification: D00, D2, D4, D8, J3, J6, L1, L2, L79, L84, R1

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: August 19, 2005 ; Last revised: June 26, 2013

Suggested Citation

Henderson, William D., An Empirical Study of Single-Tier Versus Two-Tier Partnerships in the Am Law 200 (2006). North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 84, May 2006; Indiana Legal Studies Research Paper No. 29. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=871094

Contact Information

William D. Henderson (Contact Author)
Indiana University Maurer School of Law ( email )
211 S. Indiana Avenue
Bloomington, IN 47405
United States
812-856-1788 (Phone)
812-855-0555 (Fax)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 9,661
Downloads: 1,350
Download Rank: 6,758
Citations:  3
Footnotes:  172

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.219 seconds