“Eat what you kill.” The phrase gets tossed around law firms as if it guarantees fairness and prosperity. The concept, that you’re rewarded purely for the business you bring in, has an undeniable appeal, especially to entrepreneurial lawyers. But when recruiters come calling with promises of higher compensation, better support, and fewer headaches, it’s worth pausing to ask what you’d be giving up.
Over the years, I’ve been approached by multiple firms of varying sizes, some with ten lawyers, others with five hundred or more. Each one emphasized the same points: their “platform,” their “infrastructure,” their “team.” It’s flattering, but also a little suspicious. If these firms are thriving, why do they “need” me so badly? The answer, I suspect, lies in the myth itself.
The Lure of the Larger Firm
For solos and small-firm partners, the appeal of joining a bigger shop is obvious. Administrative headaches disappear. There’s a billing department, IT support, and someone else to worry about leases and insurance. You may gain cross-selling opportunities and an impressive brand name. And if your clients can benefit from broader services, tax, IP, or regulatory counsel, a larger firm can be a logical next step.
For lawyers nearing retirement, a lateral move can even be an ideal off-ramp. Depending on the compensation formula, joining a firm with an “eat what you kill” structure can allow you to wind down gracefully, maintaining client service and income without the weight of ownership, management, or transition logistics.
The Hidden Costs
But the trade-offs are real. Moving from owner to employee or “income partner” means surrendering control, including over rates, staffing, and even which clients you can take. Your income may shrink through internal formulas that reward bureaucracy more than hustle. The firm may tout “eat what you kill,” but by the time overhead, administrative fees, and hierarchy take their share, there’s not much left on the plate.
And don’t assume that a bigger firm automatically means better support. Many big firms are just as staffing challenged as smaller practices. Recruiting and retaining quality associates is difficult everywhere. Even when firms have strong junior lawyers, the best ones are often already “spoken for” by senior partners with larger books of business. So, the support that sounds abundant in theory may, in practice, be spread thin or unavailable when you need it most.
Do the Math and Ask the Questions
Before making a move, treat the recruiter’s pitch as you would any other opportunity. Ask hard questions: How is origination credit defined and divided? What is the average realization rate at your level? Who actually “owns” the client relationship? What is the firm’s real capacity to staff matters promptly and competently?
It’s also worth reflecting on non-financial factors. Will you be happier giving up autonomy for structure? Will your entrepreneurial instincts thrive or chafe under new reporting lines? Will the culture suit your clients and your temperament?
The Real Bottom Line
There’s nothing wrong with exploring a lateral move. For some, it’s the perfect fit: more resources, less overhead, and, for those planning retirement, a softer landing. But don’t confuse the promise of a bigger table with a better meal. The “eat what you kill” model sounds liberating until you realize how many others are already eating from the same plate.
