Fixed Fee Allocations: How Fixed Fee Allocation Interacts with Compensation Settings
Fixed fee allocation and compensation settings work together—but they solve different problems. Understanding how these two layers interact will help you interpret compensation reports correctly and troubleshoot discrepancies with confidence.
This article explains the layered model LeanLaw uses, clarifies what the Responsible Attorney override actually does (and doesn’t do), and helps you diagnose the most common “worked amount vs compensation” confusion.
The Layered Model: Allocation vs. Compensation
LeanLaw calculates Fixed Fee compensation in two sequential layers:
Fixed Fee Revenue Allocation (Layer 1)
Determines who “worked” the fee and calculates a worked amount by user.Compensation Settings (Layer 2)
Splits each worked amount into firm-defined components (originating, responsible, working, firm share).
Think of it like this:
Allocation answers: “Who gets credit for the work?”
Compensation answers: “How is that credit distributed?”
Important: These layers are separate. If a report looks wrong, you usually need to check which layer the discrepancy is coming from.
Layer 1: Fixed Fee Revenue Allocation
Allocation determines how the fixed fee amount is attributed internally across users as worked amounts.
It feeds reporting and profitability
It becomes the input for compensation calculations
It does not change the client invoice
Allocation can be based on methods like percentage, worked amount, or worked hours (covered in [Fixed Fee Revenue Allocation Methods]).
Layer 2: Compensation Settings
Once LeanLaw has worked amounts (Layer 1), it applies your firm’s compensation rules, which typically include:
Originating attorney share
Responsible attorney share
Working attorney share
Firm share
These are firm-wide settings managed by administrators. The final compensation numbers are often different from the worked amounts—because the worked amount is being split across roles.
Worked Amount vs Compensation: A Quick Example
Assume:
A user has a $4,000 worked amount from allocation (Layer 1)
Your firm uses: 20% originating, 30% responsible, 40% working, 10% firm
That $4,000 is split as:
Originating: $800
Responsible: $1,200
Working: $1,600
Firm: $400
So even though someone “worked” $4,000, they may only receive the working share (e.g., $1,600)—depending on roles and firm settings.
Responsible Attorney Override: What It Really Overrides
This is a common point of confusion.
What it overrides
The working share only
When enabled, the responsible attorney receives the working portion—even if another user logged the time or was allocated the worked amount.
What it does NOT override
Originating share
Firm share
Allocation itself
In other words: it changes who receives the working portion, not how the whole fee is split.
Simple before/after (same $4,000 worked amount)
Without override
Originating (to originator): $800
Responsible (to responsible): $1,200
Working (to the worker): $1,600
Firm: $400
With responsible attorney override
Originating: $800
Responsible: $1,200
Working (redirected to responsible attorney): $1,600
Firm: $400
Only the working share moves.
Troubleshooting: “My Worked Amount Looks Right but Compensation Looks Wrong”
If worked amounts look correct but compensation does not, allocation is probably fine and the difference is coming from Layer 2.
What to check (in order)
Worked amounts (allocation output)
Do the worked amounts match your expectationsCompensation split percentages
Do originating/responsible/working/firm shares total 100% and match your firm’s rules?Matter roles
Who is set as originating attorney? Responsible attorney?Responsible attorney override
Is it enabled—and should it be?
Most “compensation looks wrong” issues come from role-based splits or the override redirecting the working share—not from allocation failing.
Key Takeaways
Allocation determines worked amount by user (Layer 1)
Compensation settings distribute each worked amount across roles (Layer 2)
The Responsible Attorney override affects the working share only
If allocation and compensation don’t match, you’re usually comparing Layer 1 output to Layer 2 output—which is expected