Non-equity partnership (also referred to as salaried partner, fixed-share partner, or non-share partner depending on jurisdiction and firm structure) has become a central feature of modern law firm talent strategy. For many firms, it solves a genuine commercial need, it rewards senior lawyers, supports leverage and client delivery, and protects the economics of the equity.
For many lawyers, however, the non-equity tier can feel like the most ambiguous rung on the ladder – partner in title, but not always in influence, security, reward, or career path. In 2025, that ambiguity became more visible, and in 2026 it is likely to become a sharper hiring and retention issue.
At Buchanan, we’ve seen non-equity partnership work brilliantly when it is designed with clarity and credibility. Where it causes friction, the problem is rarely the tier itself, it’s the mismatch between expectations and architecture: incentives, governance, path to equity, and what partner truly means day-to-day.
Why the non-equity tier expanded in 2025
The growth of non-equity partnership is not a mystery. It is driven by three linked realities:
- Clients want senior attention, but they scrutinise value.
Firms need experienced lawyers who can lead matters and relationships, but not every firm can (or should) expand the equity pool at the same pace as senior talent demand.
- Firms need a retention and progression mechanism.
The counsel / senior associate population has expanded, and high performers increasingly expect a title progression that reflects their contribution.
- Competition has intensified.
Lateral hiring activity and international expansion, particularly among firms competing for premium work, pushes firms to create credible partner propositions in a tighter market.
The outcome is a tier that is commercially attractive but only as strong as its internal logic. When the logic breaks, friction follows.
The 2025 friction points: what law firms and candidates are pushing on
1) The expectations gap: partner in title, employee in experience
A recurring issue in 2025 hiring conversations has been a widening expectations gap. Candidates hear partner and assume a set of rights and freedoms; firms intend partner as a role with senior delivery expectations, but without full ownership economics.
The friction tends to surface in four places:
- Influence: limited voting rights, limited say in strategy, and opaque decision-making.
- Security: termination provisions and notice periods that feel closer to employee status than partner status.
- Reward: fixed pay that doesn’t reflect revenue responsibility, market rates, or matter leadership.
- Status: the external value of the title is real, but internally the experience can feel like senior fee earner with added risk.
2026 watchpoint: Firms that cannot articulate the true rights/obligations of the tier will lose candidates in-process or hire people who become attrition risks.
2) Incentives and origination: the single biggest driver of friction
Non-equity partnership fails fastest when business development is expected but not rewarded in a way that feels meaningful or fair.
In 2025, we saw growing resistance to models where non-equity partners were asked to:
- originate work,
- carry relationships,
- supervise teams,
- and act like partners,
…while remaining on a predominantly fixed salary with limited upside or unclear credit allocation.
This is where culture and economics collide. The firm wants entrepreneurial behaviour. The individual wants a credible link between contribution and reward. If the link is missing, firms end up with:
- underinvestment in BD,
- credit hoarding behaviours,
- internal politics around origination and supervision,
- and a loss of collective energy in the mid-partner tier.
What best-practice firms did in 2025
The strongest models we saw had three characteristics:
- Transparent credit rules (origination, matter management, relationship stewardship, and supervision all counted with published weighting).
- Real upside (bonus pools or profit-share mechanisms meaningful enough to change behaviour).
- Protection against politics (review committees, shared credit, sunset clauses, and team selling incentives).
2026 watchpoint: Candidates will ask more direct questions about how credit is allocated and whether the firm’s credit culture is collaborative or combative.
3) The path to equity: credibility, timing, and conversion rates
In 2025, the non-equity tier increasingly split into two distinct models:
- The stepping-stone model – a genuine pathway with defined criteria, time horizon, and a visible history of conversion.
- The holding-pen model – a senior title without a clear route to equity, often used to manage progression pressure.
Both models can be legitimate. The problem arises when a firm presents the second as the first.
Candidates are becoming more sophisticated. They want to know:
- what proportion of non-equity partners convert to equity,
- how long it typically takes,
- what criteria actually matter (fees, originations, leadership, client franchise),
- and how decisions are made.
2026 watchpoint: Firms that cannot share credible internal data (even informally) will find the best candidates assume the answer is not often.
4) Governance and culture: the partner identity needs substance
If non-equity partners are treated as secondary, they will act that way. A tier that is brought into leadership, visibility, and client ownership will behave like a partnership.
In 2025, the cultural fault line was especially visible in firms where:
- non-equity partners were excluded from leadership pathways,
- partner development was informal or inconsistent,
- and feedback loops were weak.
The firms that handled it best treated non-equity partners as a strategic asset and invested accordingly:
- structured BD coaching and client plans,
- sponsorship from equity partners (not just mentorship),
- leadership roles aligned to strengths (sector lead, client lead, matter lead),
- and clear what good looks like criteria.
2026 watchpoint: With AI and efficiency pressures changing leverage, the firms that win will be those who develop senior lawyers into relationship owners, not just expert deliverers.
5) Risk and classification: clarity matters more than ever
Across jurisdictions, partners tatus can carry tax, benefits, and employment-law implications. In the UK, LLP and salaried member considerations continue to shape how firms’ structure fixed-share and salaried roles, and in the US there has been growing attention on how firms define partner status in relation to benefits and worker classification.
For hiring firms, the message is simple: where there is ambiguity, candidates will assume risk and risk reduces appeal.
2026 watchpoint: More candidates (and their advisors) will scrutinise contract terms, status definitions, and the practical implications of partner classification.
The 2026 outlook: what changes and what doesn’t
What is likely to continue
- The non-equity tier will keep expanding as firms manage senior talent demand without proportionately expanding equity.
- Candidates will push harder on specifics: upside, credit, governance, and conversion pathways.
- Firms will use non-equity partnership as a competitive lever in lateral hiring particularly for specialist practices and portable client relationships.
What will change: the market will demand better design
In 2026, we expect the best firms to differentiate themselves not by whether they have a non-equity tier, but by how coherently it is built.
The winning proposition will look like:
- a defined value exchange (what the firm expects + what the lawyer receives),
- a credible incentive system tied to BD and leadership contribution,
- a transparent pathway to equity where promised,
- a development platform that builds client owners,
- and a governance story that makes the title feel real.
A practical checklist for firms hiring non-equity partners in 2026
If you are hiring into this tier, ask yourself:
- Role clarity: Can we describe the role in one paragraph without contradictions?
- Reward clarity: Is there meaningful upside aligned to contribution?
- Credit culture: Do our origination rules encourage collaboration or conflict?
- Equity path: Are criteria and timing explicit, and do we have conversion examples?
- Governance: What influence does the role genuinely carry?
- Development: Is there structured sponsorship and BD support?
- Risk clarity: Are status, benefits, tax, and contractual implications clear and consistent?
If the answer to any of the above is it depends, that is precisely where friction begins.
What candidates should ask before accepting a non-equity partner role in 2026
For lawyers considering the move, we recommend asking:
- What is the expected split between delivery, management, and BD?
- How does the firm define success in the first 12–24 months?
- What proportion of non-equity partners convert to equity, and in what timeframe?
- How is origination credit awarded and protected?
- What is the upside mechanism (bonus/profit share) and what triggers it?
- What governance rights, notice periods, and capital requirements apply?
- How will the firm support BD (coaching, introductions, sponsorship)?
A well-run non-equity proposition stands up comfortably to these questions. If it doesn’t, that’s a signal.
Contact Us
If you would like to discuss the non-equity partner market in more detail, please contact Connor Spicer email: connor.spicer@wearebuchanan.com