Memo
To: Law Firm Partners
From: Nermin, Esq.
Date: May 18, 2026
Re: The Myth of the Perfect Partnership
Every partner dreams of the perfect partnership. The one where all the partners get along and there’s never conflict, partnership meetings begin and end with good news, business development isn’t a problem because clients are reaching out to partners, every hire always works out, the comp formula is fair to everyone, and the partners’ bank accounts are growing just as the firm is.
This is the myth of the perfect partnership. It isn’t real, but all partners have been planted with this idea of partnership. There isn’t a firm out there, no matter the revenue, reputation or longevity, that has partnership figured out like this.
The reality that I see, even inside the most profitable and long-lasting partnerships is this:
- A rollercoaster of emotions every time a partner joins or exits
- Difficult and uncomfortable conversations about not hitting firm targets for billables or origination
- Feeling stretched between being a leader and partner while still billing for client work
- Fear that a decision may cause negative results to the firm and then being paralyzed by not being able to make a decision
- Knowledge that there is so much to do, but not enough time to get everything done
Every uncomfortable, difficult, revenue-dropping situation has happened at every single firm, and no partnership is immune from it.
Now, this doesn’t mean everything is doomed. What I’m saying is that holding onto the myth of the perfect partnership may be the thing that is hurting you.
Here’s what I suggest to my clients: don’t opt for perfect, opt for functional.
Situation 1: Rain maker partner is not hitting targets as expected when Rain maker was lateraled in from another firm
Perfect partnership: This situation would never happen. The rain maker would join and bring over all of rain maker’s clients from their previous firm with no attrition and bill more than what was expected. The firm makes more money, the partners make more money, everyone is happy and smiling.
Functional partnership: Before the rain maker joins, the firm’s Managing Partner is realistic about the true portable book of business, understanding that 60% of the clients conservatively speaking will join the new firm, and the first 12 months of the rain maker at the new firm will be an adjustment, and the firm’s targets and KPIs will reflect that lowered expectation. The Managing Partner will also support the rain maker with business development opportunities, hiring a coach and setting aside a conference budget, while working with the marketing team to have more exposure for the new rain maker partner to speak at industry events, and building out their presence on LinkedIn.
Situation 2: The partners want to expand to a new office and have identified the partners who will lead that office
Perfect partnership: The firm has enough cash flow to support the new location and admin staff that is needed for support. The new partners are reasonable and don’t want equity until they hit their targets at the end of year 1, and then equity can be evaluated. The current partners all agree about the decision to expand and are happy to reevaluate the equity of the firm if it’s better for the firm.
Functional partnership: Bringing on new partners and expanding to another location is a bumpy process, no matter how many conversations you have ahead of time or how many admin staff you bring on to help with the process. The expectation is that this process will be bumpy. The bumps will likely last the first year. All of the partners (including the Managing Partner and the founders) will have to give up some equity to bring on the new partners. The firm knows that this will upset some partners more than others, and the goal is not delusional agreement, but an understanding that if the firm wants to increase revenue by 20%, this is one way to do it, and it will result in a larger payout for each partner after 18-24 months.
Situation 3: Managing workload and disagreement across partners
Perfect partnership: Every partner has the right amount of work at all times. They’re never overworked. If they are, support is hired immediately and there’s no additional training required. Every decision that is made by the partners is agreed on by everyone, and there is no disagreement, ever.
Functional partnership: There will be times when partners are underworked and overworked. They know they can rely on their partners for support, and have a clear comp structure that rewards a service partner beyond just billable time. They also know that hiring is about capacity, specifically, and know where to find the attorney capacity requirements to trigger the hiring process. And finally, partners don’t always agree on the decisions the firm makes. But, when decisions are made, they are done so with the firm’s billables, capacity, client demand and projections being considered. Every partner has access to these numbers and they are discussed openly before a decision is put to vote.
The most important thing I want partners like you to understand is this: the goal is not a perfect partnership, the goal is a functional one where there isn’t relationship debt or resentment between the partners.
Partners won’t always agree on everything, and they shouldn’t. But when there is disagreement, it doesn’t effect the relationship between the partners.
Across the firms I work with, the functional version has three things in common:
1) There’s transparency – the partners all have access to the same information.
2) Numbers are the focus – each decision is backed by numbers, data, analysis; not just by one partner wanting something.
3) Ownership – there is understanding by all partners on who owns certain next steps after a decision is made, what the deadline/timeline is for the actions that will follow, and a cost of delaying forward action.
