Brainard, Bennis, and Farrell
This case raises a number of issues in connection with compensating partners in law firms and more generally in partnerships such as accounting firms, consulting firms, etc.
1.
The trade off between seniority- and performance-based rewards, or perhaps better put, between rewarding past contribution, if it was good, versus current contribution.
2.
If performance-based pay is stressed, then one needs to figure out how to weigh the various factors, such as a.
origination fees, should they be shared, for how long should they be given, etc. b.
partners who start new and potentially risky business that yet have to make any earnings c.
those partners who work in lines that may be important to the firm, in terms of their entire portefolio, but that do not make big profits
3.
The central dilemma is to figure out to weigh short- versus long-term contribution, especially the contributions of founders and those that built up a firm but that no longer need be major contributors.
4.
Most performance-based pay schemes involve judgement and case-to-case calls. Rarely is there a straight application of a formula. This creates dilemmas, about ambiguity of reward structure, etc.
5.
All of above need to be communicated to partners. Then consensus needs to be reached.
6.
Hiring from the outside into partnership positions creates special problems. In order to be competitive and succeed on might have to offer very good deals. This may upset the internal compensation structure of the firm.
The central characters in the case are:

Richard Kincaid , the chair of the executive committee: He faces the problem of figuring out how to adjudicate between the various demands from the partners, the old versus the young guard.

Paul Piccoli , a partner: He has started a new line of work and the concern is how to reward him when it has yet to bring in any profits and its prospects are uncertain.

Paula O'Brien , a partner hired in from the outside: To attract her, to be competitive, in a field the firm needed representation, it had to give her a better deal than what other partners her age received.

Jason Cesario , partner, tax law: He is the best tax lawyer in the firm. He is more productive than anyone else and gets the work done in less time. He therefore bills fewer hours for the same job and may appear to be less productive. He cannot be used for generating business because he is not presentable to customers.

Thornton Grey , a partner with long seniority (age 62): He bills fewer hours than most partners (in one year only 800) and brings in very little new business. At the same time he draws a very large compensation. This creates resentment among especially the younger partners.

Case: Brainard, Bennis, and Farrell
RE: On presentation of case
There will be altogether 7 different groups when discussion the case, at least one for each of the parties identified below. I will call on these when discussing the case.
Please split into groups of 5-8 students.
Groups 1-5 should represent one the following parties in the case:
This gives the following.
Group 1 represents Kincaid.
Group 2 represents Piccoli.
Group 3 represents O'Brien.
Group 4 represents Cesario.
Group 5 represents Grey.
Each of groups 1-5 should prepare what they view to be the best position of the party they represent as well as views on what the other parties should get.
Group 6 should represent an outside consulting agency giving advice on how to solve the compensation problem.
Group 7 should analyze the case from the viewpoint of an academic, relating it to the readings in the class.

I will ask questions to each group and ask for responses from the other groups.

Each group needs to meet prior to the case being presented. You then agree on what your view will be. That view is to be presented in class. I will pick, during class, one member from each group to present their view.

There may be more than one group representing each character in the case.

During the class we will engage in some role play around the case.