I have often written on the tension between lockstep compensation and eat-what-you-kill, and I'm coming to the view that a nuanced, subjective, and openly ad hoc approach is probably the best, all things considered.  Each of the polar end-points on that spectrum has deep flaws.  (Except, of course, when they don't—lockstep works wonders for the creme de la creme of New York including Cleary-Gottlieb, Davis-Polk, and Simpson-Thacher, whereas eat-what-you-kill has brought Greenberg-Traurig from a nice little Florida firm to #20 on the AmLaw 100 in the space of a decade.)

But here's something entirely different to consider:  What if legal regulation pulls the lockstep chess-piece off the board entirely?

Here in the states, the seminal case is EEOC vs. Sidley-Austin, 315 F.3rd 696 (7th Cir. 2002), in which, as you probably know, Judge Richard Posner concluded that Sidley's "partners" were not necessarily that given the intense centralization of power prescribed by the partnership agreement, and that they could be deemed for purposes of federal antidiscrimination law, "employees."

Now, in the UK, the EC plans to impose new regulations next year that could likewise threaten lockstep. 

Given that partnership compensation structures are just about the single most important tool management has available in its kit, wouldn't it be nice to be treated as responsible adults presumably capable of making intelligent decisions in your own best interest, and not have a key tool confiscated?  But I editorialize.