If yes, it’s well worth reading this important Cat Rutter Pooley piece along with the John Gapper article she links to. My view below.

• 𝙇𝙤𝙘𝙠-𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙥 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨 – where partner contributions (time, profit, leadership …) do not vary too much and rewards are at the top end of their markets. See Slaughter and May and others with tight client and work-type focus and narrow geographic footprints. Clients also get great service from leading industry/sector experts that are totally client focused.
• 𝙇𝙤𝙘𝙠-𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙥 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙫𝙞𝙫𝙚 – as a profit allocation system – when contributions are varied but little top-end market competition for firm’s most productive partners. See the Magic Circle in 1990s and early 2000s, pre-PE boom taking firm hold.
• 𝙇𝙤𝙘𝙠-𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙥 𝙘𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙫𝙞𝙫𝙚 – in its pure form – in a market where variable contribution and high levels of poaching pressure on firms’ most productive partners co-exist. The PE pressure-cooker.

𝙎𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 – for most firms – a well calibrated, clear and consistent, contribution based partner profit allocation system. But without, necessarily, throwing out all aspects of tenure based reward with the pure “profit productivity” bath-water.

𝙁𝙪𝙧𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 – John Stacy Adams’ equity theory.
𝙁𝙪𝙧𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 – the difference between the partnership business model and the way partnerships distribute profits?