Guide · Lateral partner hiring
Integration plans: the hidden dealbreaker in partner hiring.
The LPQ prices the book. The guarantee prices the floor. Neither is a plan for the first 18 months — and firms without one see 30 to 40 percent higher attrition.
Is there a plan — or just a welcome lunch?
Pick the pattern you are actually looking at. Talent is rarely the variable. The variable is whether anyone owns the 18 months after the announcement.
The announcement ran. Onboarding will finish. Nobody has a calendar, a credit memo or a conservative transfer case. That is not ramp. Write the plan now, or price the miss.
The dealbreaker is rarely talent. It is whether a written operating system exists for the 18 months the floor is paying. The thesis is laid out below.
- 30–40%
- higher attrition without a processfirms that lack a lateral integration process versus those that have one
- ABA Law Practice Magazine, July–August 2025
- 35%
- fail to integrate culturallya different population from five-year exits and book-miss — do not add the three together
- Decipher Investigative Intelligence, public compilation
- 61%
- of growth-satisfied firms pick networkingtop selected indicator of effective lateral integration among firms satisfied with revenue growth
- Passle 2026 survey, via Above the Law, May 2026
- $2.3M
- average all-in cost to hireALM Intelligence average; coveted hires reported well above $5 million
- ALM Intelligence, via ALA Legal Management, February 2020
The book is what you bought. The plan is whether you get to keep it.
Partner hiring still treats integration as a courtesy after the close. The published attrition gap says it is the product.
Hiring committees diligence the Lateral Partner Questionnaire as if portability were the whole underwriting problem. Partners diligence the guarantee as if the floor were the whole career problem. Both documents matter. Neither is an integration plan. The plan is the written operating system for the months in which the book either becomes a practice at the new firm or drains back to the old one.
That is a different claim from our 18-month failure guide, which maps the window in which a miss becomes diagnosable. This page is about the document that should have been on the table at signing. ABA Business Law Today, in February 2025, put the point in operating language: recruiting is the investment; integration is what decides whether the investment works. Major, Lindsey & Africa’s 2023 Partner Satisfaction Survey found that partners who reported a concerted effort to integrate them were the ones most likely to report higher satisfaction — the survey’s strongest predictor among the factors it tracked.
The attrition evidence is not subtle. Howard Rosenberg’s July–August 2025 treatment in ABA Law Practice Magazine reports that firms lacking a lateral integration process see 30 to 40 percent higher attrition than firms that have one. That is not a personality statistic. It is a process statistic. The same article puts follow-through of a stated book at about 70 percent, with further drop-off over the 18 months after the move as lingering loyalty to the former firm reasserts — which is why a plan that only lasts 90 days is finished before the erosion even shows in collections.
Culture, in the survey literature, is usually this process by another name. Decipher’s public compilation still lists 35 percent of laterals failing to integrate culturally, alongside 48 percent five-year exits and 62 percent missing the promised book. ALA Legal Management, reading the ALM/Decipher Risky Business work in February 2020, reported that 74 percent of firms cited cultural-fit issues as a reason laterals do not stay past five years. Those answers cluster where there was no sponsor, no internal work, and no written credit. They do not require a story about people who could not get along.
What the close pricesWhat the hire runs on
Stated originations, a conservative-looking projection, an 18–24 month number. Necessary. Not sufficient. A floor without a plan is hope capitalised.
Owner, sponsor dates, credit memo, staffing budget, transfer-case tracker, formula-year landing. This is the product the announcement was supposed to buy.
The book is what you bought. The plan is whether you get to keep it.
Onboarding is ninety days. Integration is eighteen months.
Confusing the two is how a laptop, a billing number and a welcome lunch get treated as a retention strategy.
Onboarding is logistics. Conflicts clearance, time-and-billing, matter-opening, IT, office, the first-week introductions to professional staff. It has a finish line, usually inside 90 days, and it is necessary. A partner who cannot open a matter is not ramping; they are stuck in arrivals. Integration is whether, once those pipes work, the hire becomes a practising member of the partnership: internal instructions in both directions, portable clients who actually follow, credit rules incumbents will live with, a sponsor still meeting after the novelty has worn off.
ALA Legal Management drew that distinction in 2020 and it has not aged. Onboarding, the authors wrote, tends to focus on a finite window — typically the first 90 days. Retention looks at the long-term picture. One global firm they described had documented a 100-step retention process, assigned a single point of contact, paired the lateral with a key partner as a formal mentor, and scheduled check-ins at milestones. The documentation and the single owner were the point. NALP’s Lateral Hiring Best Practices Guide puts the same sequence in recruiting language: needs assessment, diligence, then integrating a new lateral, with evaluation at regular intervals. Major, Lindsey & Africa’s integration note is more blunt still: the plan starts in the interview process, before the start date, and includes steps, benchmarks and named responsibilities — not a hope that the lateral will “find their way.”
ABA Business Law Today (February 2025) fills in the operating pieces firms still skip: define what success looks like for this specific hire before the move; put colleague connections on a 90-day calendar rather than leaving them to chance; give the process an owner, because work distributed across recruiting, BD and practice leadership with no single accountability becomes an afterthought; and track client follow-through, internal engagement and business-development activity rather than announcement-day originations. Some firms now appoint a dedicated integration lead. Most still do not. The 30 to 40 percent attrition gap in the ABA Law Practice 2025 article is the published cost of that omission.
| Question | Onboarding (logistics) | Integration plan (operating system) |
|---|---|---|
| Horizon | First 90 days, then done | 18 months, then the formula year |
| Owner | Operations / professional staff | A named sponsor plus a process owner |
| Success looks like | Live on the system, office working | Collections tracking a conservative case; internal work both ways |
| Credit | Usually silent | Written rules for portable, co-originated and institutional work |
| Clients | Conflicts clearance, matter numbers | Instructions actually received; 18-month drop-off measured, not guessed |
| People | Orientation and first-week intros | A calendar of introductions that are supposed to produce work |
| Economics | The floor is already signed | The formula year is modelled before the floor ends |
LogisticsOperating system
- Onboarding IT, billing, conflicts, first week. Necessary. Finished inside 90 days.
- The plan Sponsor, credit memo, staffing, transfer-case tracker, formula landing. This is the missing document.
- A practice Internal work both ways; portable remnant stable; floor rolls into a number the partner can live with.
Onboarding is ninety days. Integration is eighteen months.
Skipping the plan is not a soft landing. It is already an expensive claim.
Volume in the lateral market is not a success rate. It is more hires walking into the same missing operating system.
ALM Intelligence has estimated the all-in cost of hiring a lateral partner at about $2.3 million on average, with coveted hires well above $5 million, as cited in ALA Legal Management in February 2020. ABA Law Practice (2025) separately notes that the cost to recruit, onboard and integrate can easily exceed $1 million before the guarantee is even paying. Decipher’s public compilation, re-cited by Above the Law in May 2026 and by Attorney at Work in January 2026, puts the replacement cost of a failed lateral at 200 to 400 percent of first-year compensation once recruiter fees, guarantees and replacement are counted. Of those who stay, Decipher has also reported that nearly 50 percent fail to break even within five years.
Those figures are why a missing plan is not a culture conversation you can have later. Hugh Simons’ ALM Rival Edge analysis, reported in the ABA Journal in February 2017, tracked 1,130 hires at 100 high-PEP firms and put five-year exits at 47 percent. It also found it takes about two to three years for a lateral to come up to speed, and the same span for the firm to recoup recruiting costs and compensation-above-contribution. Not staying five years is, in that frame, a loss-making proposition. At 18 months the firm has already paid more than a year of above-contribution compensation and still cannot see a completed recoup. A plan funded then is already eating the window.
The market has not slowed enough to make any of this cheaper. NALP’s May 2026 survey, covering 305 offices and firms, recorded 3,535 lateral lawyers in 2025, with total hiring up 16.4 percent and partner hiring up 17.8 percent. Firm Prospects’ 2025 Am Law 200 report, covered by The Global Legal Post in January 2026, counted 3,009 lateral partner hires — about 10 percent above 2024. Volume is heat. It is not a success rate.
A plan funded at month 15 is already eating the window.
Eight parts of a plan. Zero of them are a laptop.
If it does not have an owner, a date and a number you can check at month six, it is a sentiment. Sentiments do not retain laterals.
ABA Business Law Today (2025) and Major, Lindsey & Africa’s integration note converge on the same shape: a plan with steps, benchmarks and named responsibilities; success defined before the move; connections scheduled rather than hoped for; a process owner; and metrics that look at client follow-through and internal engagement, not just announcement-day originations. The eight parts below are that shape written as a diligence list. They are this article’s own enumeration, not a published census of firm programmes.
A named sponsor, on a calendar
A person with authority, first-100-days dates already booked, and a reason to keep showing up after the welcome lunch. "We will support you" is not a sponsor.
A written definition of success
What this hire is for — a strategic gap, a client platform, a practice build — agreed before the move, not reconstructed after collections disappoint.
Conflicts and rate-card clearance
Which matters die on day one, and whether portable clients will actually instruct at the new rates. Run before the term sheet, not after the announcement.
Origination rules in writing
Credit for portable clients, co-originators, institutional relationships and sunset clauses. Unwritten credit is how incumbents turn a solvable transfer into a political one.
Staffing and a team budget
The associates and counsel who make the book serviceable, named and funded. A rainmaker without a bench is a collections story that cannot be delivered.
A client and cross-sell calendar
Internal introductions that produce work, not lunch. External introductions with a reason. Passle's 2026 growth-satisfied firms treated networking as the leading integration indicator.
Collections versus the transfer case
Track the conservative portability case, not the LPQ pitch. Industry figures still put stated-book follow-through near 70%, with further 18-month drop-off.
The formula year, modelled now
What the partnership array pays when the 18–24 month floor ends. A floor without a landing is a cliff with a date.
- Named sponsor, on a calendar
- Written definition of success
- Conflicts and rate-card clearance
- Origination rules in writing
- Staffing and a team budget
- Client and cross-sell calendar
- Collections versus the transfer case
- Formula year, modelled now
The plan has a calendar. If it does not, it is not a plan.
Eighteen months is where book drop-off, the fixed deal and the unfinished recoup meet. A 90-day checklist is finished before any of those clocks have spoken.
Three sourced clocks make 18 months the operating window, which is why an integration plan that dies at day 90 is a category error. The book clock: ABA Law Practice (2025) describes further drop-off, even of the business that travelled, over the 18 months after the move. The deal clock: Major, Lindsey & Africa still describes most firms paying laterals on a fixed deal for 18 to 24 months, then compensating them in the partnership array. The recoup clock: Simons found two to three years to come up to speed and to recoup. A plan is the document that is supposed to still be running when those three clocks meet. Our 18-month guide is the diagnosis. This table is the operating checklist.
- Gate 1 Before the term sheet Owner, sponsor name, credit memo, staffing budget, conservative transfer case. If it is not written here, it will not appear after the announcement.
- Gate 2 Day 90 Onboarding is closed. Integration is not. 100-day milestones reviewed against the written plan, not against whether the laptop arrived.
- Gate 3 Month 12 Collections tracking the haircut case. Internal work both ways. Formula year modelled. A fortress practice at month 12 is a signal, not a mood.
- Gate 4 Month 18 Ramp versus miss is diagnosable. The floor is ending or about to. Remaining portable book is stable, or it is not.
Onboarding ends
Logistics finish. A plan that ends here is a category error.
ALA Legal Management 2020; practitioner convention| Gate | Should be true | Red flag | Owns it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Before signing | Written plan with owner, sponsor name, success definition, credit rules, staffing budget, conservative transfer case | "We will support you"; credit "to be confirmed"; 90-day IT checklist sold as the plan | Hiring committee + partner |
| Day 0–30 | Conflicts cleared, billing live, first internal introductions already on calendars, BD owner assigned | Still not live; no sponsor meeting; first portable clients have not been asked to instruct | Firm operations |
| Day 90 | Onboarding closed; integration still running; 100-day milestones reviewed against the written plan | Orientation treated as the finish line; no collections tracker; no second wave of introductions | Sponsor |
| Month 6 | First portable clients instructing; weekly sponsor contact; cross-practice work opening, not just promised | Fortress practice; lunch-only intros; collections far below the haircut case | Firm + partner |
| Month 9 | Origination-credit rules actually applied to live matters; following team staffed; internal work both ways | Credit still oral; no associates assigned; laterals eating their own hours | Practice leadership |
| Month 12 | Year-one collections tracking the conservative case; client concentration visible; formula-year modelled | No collections trend; one or two clients still carrying the story; partner already shopping | Compensation committee |
| Month 18 | Ramp versus miss is diagnosable; remaining portable book is stable; integration is a practice, not a project | Clients re-anchored at the old firm; formula cannot hold the floor; isolation is now culture | Firm + partner |
| Month 24 | Floor has rolled into a formula the partner can live with; retention is a choice, not a handcuff | Cliff renegotiation from weakness; clawback theatre; second move already in motion | Both sides |
Six ways a missing plan shows up before anyone resigns.
A hire can still be sitting in the building and already have failed. Failure modes are patterns, not a fourth invented exit rate.
Hire and hope
The search closed. The announcement ran. Nobody owns the next 18 months. Onboarding finishes; the fortress practice begins.
Onboarding theatre
A 90-day IT and orientation checklist is presented as integration. The lateral is live on the system and still unknown to the partnership.
Fortress practice
No internal work in either direction. The hire eats their own hours on the portable remnant until the floor expires.
Credit politics
Incumbents resent the special deal. Origination is "to be confirmed." Isolation becomes culture — the reason most surveyed firms give for five-year exits.
Book without a bench
The clients who might have followed needed a team. The team was not funded, not named, or not free to move. The book was never serviceable here.
Deal cliff, no landing
The 18–24 month floor ends. The formula cannot hold the number. The partner starts the next process from weakness. Insurance was paid; the asset still left.
Passle’s 2026 survey, via Above the Law, adds the business-development texture behind several of those modes. Ninety percent of the 100 managing partners and BD leads surveyed at the top 200 U.S. firms and the top 100 in the U.K. reported business-development challenges with laterals. Every surveyed firm reported trouble transferring an incoming book. Among firms satisfied with their revenue growth, 61 percent selected engagement in internal and external networking as the top indicator of effective lateral integration. Only 41 percent of partners thought their colleagues understood what they did; 52 percent thought they understood the rest of the firm. A fortress practice is that visibility gap with a compensation package attached.
Political risk is the other half, and it is more inside the firm’s control than the book. ABA Law Practice (2025) notes that unhappiness among existing partners with the compensation given to laterals is the second-most-cited reason for internal partner dissatisfaction, citing McKinsey Legal Research. A special deal with no story and no written credit rules is how that statistic gets a new data point. Firms Rosenberg described as clearing 70 percent lateral success rates tended to hire for identified strategic gaps rather than opportunistically for revenue. A plan is easier to write when the hire has a reason other than the number.
A fortress practice is a visibility gap with a compensation package attached.
The LPQ is the firm's diligence of you. The plan is yours of them.
Ask for a name, a calendar and a credit memo. If the answer is a sentiment, the platform is unproven — on both sides of the table.
Major, Lindsey & Africa’s candidate guidance has long told partners to vet the platform as carefully as the firm vets the book: synergies, examples of cross-selling, how matters are staffed, who has joined and who has left. Those questions are the integration plan in interrogative form. The LPQ remains the firm’s diligence of the candidate — see our LPQ guide and business-plan guide. The missing symmetric document is a plan the hiring committee can attach to the term sheet. Without it, the floor is priced on a book that has not yet met the partnership.
- Q1 Is there a written plan with a named owner and sponsor dates already on a calendar? No → you are buying a search close, not a hire. Write it or walk.
- Q2 Are origination rules and the staffing budget in writing, with conflicts already run? No → the book you priced may not be the book that survives day one, and incumbents will not share work they cannot credit.
- Q3 Is the formula year modelled, and is collections tracked against a conservative transfer case? No → the 18–24 month floor is a bridge to a cliff. Hold the term sheet.
- → All three yes? The hire is underwritable. The floor is insurance, not hope.
| Item | What to interrogate | Prevents | Weighs most for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Named sponsor and dates | A person, a calendar and first-100-days milestones — not a sentiment | Fortress practice | Firm & partner |
| Written success definition | Strategic gap, client platform or practice build — what does "working" mean at month 12 and 18? | Hire-and-hope | Firm |
| Conflicts and rate card before the term sheet | Which matters die on day one? Will portable clients instruct at the new rates? | Truncated book | Firm & partner |
| Origination policy in writing | Portable clients, co-originators, institutional relationships, sunset rules — before month six | Credit fights | Partner |
| Staffing and team budget | Is the book sticky only with following associates? Are they funded, named and free to move? | Unserviceable book | Firm & partner |
| Conservative transfer case | Haircut the LPQ. Industry follow-through is nearer 70% of the stated book, then 18-month drop-off | Overpriced floor | Firm |
| Cross-sell calendar with owners | Who introduces whom, by when, and what work is supposed to follow? Networking is the indicator growth-satisfied firms actually watch | Visibility gap | Firm |
| Floor versus formula at month 18–24 | What number applies when the deal ends? Where did the last three laterals land after the floor? | Deal cliff | Partner |
For the firm, the plan is how you stop paying insurance on a fortress.
- Attach the plan to the term sheet. A named sponsor, dates, a conservative transfer case and a process owner. If it cannot be written, it will not be run.
- Haircut the LPQ before you price the floor. Industry follow-through sits near 70 percent of the stated book, then drops (ABA Law Practice 2025). Price the conservative case, not the pitch.
- Write origination before month six. Unwritten credit is how the 74 percent cultural-fit statistic (ALA 2020) gets made. Incumbents need a story for the special deal; Rosenberg’s ABA piece is explicit that a strategic-gap hire is easier to defend than an opportunistic one.
- Fund the bench. A book that is sticky only with following associates is not portable if those associates are not moving, not free, or not budgeted.
For the partner, the plan is how you tell a platform from a pitch.
- Ask for a name and a calendar. Who is the sponsor, and which dates are already booked? A sentiment is not a sponsor.
- Interrogate credit and the formula year with the same intensity as the annual number. The 18–24 month deal is a bridge. Ask where it lands. See our guarantee anatomy.
- Do not over-claim the book. Overstating portability is the fastest way to a failed move and to a clawback conversation when the floor ends. Test clients before you list them — our portability framework is the candidate-side test.
- Treat isolation at month six as a signal. If introductions have produced lunch and not work, the plan is already failing while the floor is still paying. That is cheaper to name now than at month 18.
The LPQ is the firm's diligence of you. The plan is yours of them.
Common questions about integration plans
What is an integration plan in partner hiring?
An integration plan is the written operating system for the first 18 months of a lateral partner hire: a named sponsor with dates on a calendar, a definition of success the firm and the partner both signed, origination-credit rules in writing, a staffing budget, a client-introduction and cross-sell calendar, collections tracked against a conservative transfer case, and a model of what the partnership formula pays when the 18–24 month floor ends. It is not a 90-day IT checklist. ABA Business Law Today (February 2025) treats integration as the factor that decides whether the hire succeeds; Major, Lindsey & Africa describes a structured plan of steps, benchmarks and named responsibilities as the start of that work.
How is an integration plan different from onboarding?
Onboarding is logistics: conflicts clearance, billing numbers, matter-opening, laptops, office, the first-week introductions. It is usually finished in 90 days. Integration is whether the hire becomes a practising member of the partnership — internal work flowing both ways, portable clients actually instructing, credit rules that incumbents will live with, a sponsor who is still meeting after the welcome lunch. ALA Legal Management (February 2020) drew the same line: onboarding is a finite window; retention is the long-term picture. Firms that sell the first as if it were the second are running hire-and-hope.
Do laterals really fail because of culture, or because nobody wrote a plan?
The published figures mix three events. Decipher’s public compilation still lists about 48% leaving within five years, 62% missing the promised book, and 35% failing to integrate culturally. ALA Legal Management (2020), reading ALM/Decipher Risky Business, reported that 74% of firms cited cultural-fit issues as a reason laterals do not last five years. Culture, in those surveys, often means no sponsor, no internal introductions that produced work, and credit fights — the absence of a plan, not a personality clash. ABA Law Practice (July–August 2025) is more specific: firms that lack a lateral integration process see 30–40% higher attrition than firms that have one.
When should the integration plan exist — after the offer, or before?
Before the term sheet. Major, Lindsey & Africa’s integration guidance is explicit that the work starts in the interview process, not on day one. ABA Business Law Today (2025) puts strategic alignment — what success looks like for this hire — in front of the move. A plan written after the announcement is a recovery document. A plan that exists as a diligence object, with an owner and dates, is what makes the floor underwritable. Our 18-month failure guide is the diagnosis window; this page is the document that should have been on the table at signing.
What should a partner ask about the integration plan before signing?
Ask for a name, not a sentiment. Who is the sponsor, and which dates are already on their calendar? Who owns origination on portable clients, on co-originated work, and on institutional relationships — in writing? Which associates are budgeted to service the book, and are they free to move? What number applies when the 18–24 month fixed deal ends (Major, Lindsey & Africa still describes that as common recruiter practice)? If the answer is “we will support you” with no owner, treat the platform as unproven. The LPQ is the firm’s diligence of you; the integration plan is yours of them. See also our LPQ guide and guarantee anatomy.
Can a firm recover a hire that arrived without a plan?
Sometimes, if the miss is ramp rather than a misread book, and if someone is still willing to fund the operating system at month six or twelve. Garden leave and conflicts mean year-one collections often lag; that is why floors exist (see our rainmaker-economics guide). What does not recover is a fortress practice at month 12 with no collections trend, no written credit rules and no internal work in either direction. Hugh Simons’ ALM Rival Edge work, reported in the ABA Journal (2017), put the recoup window at two to three years. A plan funded at month 15 is already eating the recoup. Cheaper to write it before the announcement than to retrofit it after the book has drained back to the old firm.
Sources.
The attrition gap, book follow-through and cost multiples are published. The eight-part plan and the watchpoint table are this page's own operating lists, timed against those sourced clocks.
Sources & further reading
18 references- ABA Law Practice Magazine — The financial and political risks of lateral partner hiring (July–August 2025) americanbar.org ↗
- ABA Business Law Today — Mastering integration: a strategic approach to lateral partner success (February 2025) businesslawtoday.org ↗
- Above the Law — A third of lateral partners are gone in 5 years (May 2026) abovethelaw.com ↗
- Passle — The collaboration gap: cross-selling and collaboration report (2026) passle.ai ↗
- ALA Legal Management — Setting laterals up for success (February 2020) alanet.org ↗
- Decipher Investigative Intelligence — Lateral hire statistics decipherintel.com ↗
- Decipher — More lateral hire stats decipherintel.com ↗
- ALM Intelligence / Decipher — Risky Business executive summary (2019) law.com ↗
- ABA Journal — Nearly half of lateral partner hires don't stay full five years (February 2017) abajournal.com ↗
- Major, Lindsey & Africa — The critical role of integration in lateral hiring success mlaglobal.com ↗
- Major, Lindsey & Africa — Enhancing lateral partner opportunities and compensation mlaglobal.com ↗
- NALP — U.S. law firm lateral hiring shows broad growth in 2025 (May 2026) nalp.org ↗
- The Global Legal Post — US lateral partner hires hit a five-year high (January 2026) globallegalpost.com ↗
- Attorney at Work — Lateral partners don't fail for lack of talent (January 2026) attorneyatwork.com ↗
- NALP — Lateral hiring best practices guide nalp.org ↗
- Sartori & Partners — Why lateral partner hires fail after 18 months ↗
- Sartori & Partners — Lateral partner hiring: a strategic guide for law firms ↗
- Sartori & Partners — Rainmaker economics: why firms pay multi-year guarantees ↗
There is no public census of lateral partners who exit at month 18, and no public dollar ROI for a 12-month integration programme. This article treats the integration plan as the diligence object that is supposed to survive three sourced clocks — 18-month book drop-off (ABA Law Practice 2025), an 18–24 month fixed deal (Major, Lindsey & Africa), and a two-to-three-year recoup (ALM Rival Edge / Simons). Failure-rate bands vary by definition (exit versus book miss versus culture) and by study vintage; ranges are stated rather than a single false precision. The 30–40 percent higher-attrition figure is a process comparison (firms with versus without an integration process), not a new 18-month exit rate.
Write the plan. Then underwrite the book.
An integration plan sits on top of a business case, an LPQ and a realistic read of the 18-month window. These are the adjacent pieces.
Why Lateral Partner Hires Fail After 18 Months
The diagnosis window this plan is built to survive — book drop-off, the fixed-deal cliff, and the recoup clock.
Read the 18-month guideLateral Partner Hiring: A Strategic Guide for Law Firms
The firm-side playbook this integration read sits under — portable books, the LPQ, and integration as the start of the hire.
Read the firm-side guideHow to Build a Credible Lateral Partner Business Plan
The candidate-side business case a committee will stress-test — plan versus LPQ, portability dissection, the economic ask.
Read the business-plan guideFor firms and partners
Need a candid read on whether a hire has a plan — or just an announcement?
We help firms attach a written integration plan to the term sheet before the floor is priced, and help partners diligence the platform before they sign. Quiet, evidence-led, and just as willing to say walk as to structure a deal.