Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
CanuckObserver
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:19 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby CanuckObserver » Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:28 pm

rayiner wrote: I think you're very uncreative if you think unpredictability means no life. I'd rather have to spontaneously find something to do on a free evening than never have an evening.


Agreed. While there are certainly times that last minute deadlines mean there is some unpredictability, the reality is that I have a lot more free time over someone who knows they are going to be working an average of 90 hours every week.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby vanwinkle » Mon Sep 05, 2011 6:15 pm

ruski wrote:so i dont think someone who bills 3000 is really spending 4500 hours in the office, assuming a 66% efficiency level. that would be spending 90 hours a week in the office every single week with a 2 weeks vacation.

How about some actual statistics?

On the Avery Index website ( http://www.averyindex.com/shortest_hour_law_firms.php ), law firms are ranked by hours worked and hours billed per week. According to the survey of 161 firms, WLRK ranked #161 or dead last for lowest work hours; real shocker, there. Associates averaged billing 62.5 hours per week, and to do so they averaged 71.1 hours of work per week. Assuming 2 weeks of vacation, that means in the remaining 50 weeks they billed 3,125 hours by working 3,555 hours.

And these are averages, but how much more can you already work when you're already averaging 70 hours per week? If you put in 80 hours one week, that means you can get away with "only" 60 hours another week. There's no way to get so far ahead that you have under-40-hour "down" weeks and still keep that average, unless there are also weeks where you worked over 100 hours to offset them.

Think about that for a minute. 70+ hours per week, every week. That's a 12-hour workday every day Monday-Friday and 10 hours left over for the weekend. I've worked real jobs that had long hours, and they suck. The longer you work the more mentally fatigued you get. After continuous 12-hour days you'll barely have enough energy to get yourself home and into bed.

The same list also adds up reported salary+bonus for midlevel associates, and converts it to a realistic $/hr figure. At WLRK, you're making $71.69/hr. But you can make nearly that much on a per-hour basis without killing yourself. At Debevoise, #132 on their list, people worked 57.6 hours to bill 47.5 hours on average, and did so at an effective $68.92/hr. Now, that's only a couple dollars an hour short of what you get for your time at WLRK, and your hours will on average be much more survivable. You could have the same weekday schedule, 12-hour days, but your weekends would be free. Or you could work the same 10 hours per weekend and need less than 10 hours per workday to do the rest. Either way, you're much less likely to burn out because you're working a less unreasonable number of hours.

And you're still getting paid almost as richly for each hour you're putting in. You're just not having to put in quite so many.

User avatar
smokyroom26
Posts: 253
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:56 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby smokyroom26 » Mon Sep 05, 2011 6:55 pm

vanwinkle wrote:
ruski wrote:so i dont think someone who bills 3000 is really spending 4500 hours in the office, assuming a 66% efficiency level. that would be spending 90 hours a week in the office every single week with a 2 weeks vacation.

How about some actual statistics?

On the Avery Index website ( http://www.averyindex.com/shortest_hour_law_firms.php ), law firms are ranked by hours worked and hours billed per week. According to the survey of 161 firms, WLRK ranked #161 or dead last for lowest work hours; real shocker, there. Associates averaged billing 62.5 hours per week, and to do so they averaged 71.1 hours of work per week. Assuming 2 weeks of vacation, that means in the remaining 50 weeks they billed 3,125 hours by working 3,555 hours.

And these are averages, but how much more can you already work when you're already averaging 70 hours per week? If you put in 80 hours one week, that means you can get away with "only" 60 hours another week. There's no way to get so far ahead that you have under-40-hour "down" weeks and still keep that average, unless there are also weeks where you worked over 100 hours to offset them.

Think about that for a minute. 70+ hours per week, every week. That's a 12-hour workday every day Monday-Friday and 10 hours left over for the weekend. I've worked real jobs that had long hours, and they suck. The longer you work the more mentally fatigued you get. After continuous 12-hour days you'll barely have enough energy to get yourself home and into bed.

The same list also adds up reported salary+bonus for midlevel associates, and converts it to a realistic $/hr figure. At WLRK, you're making $71.69/hr. But you can make nearly that much on a per-hour basis without killing yourself. At Debevoise, #132 on their list, people worked 57.6 hours to bill 47.5 hours on average, and did so at an effective $68.92/hr. Now, that's only a couple dollars an hour short of what you get for your time at WLRK, and your hours will on average be much more survivable. You could have the same weekday schedule, 12-hour days, but your weekends would be free. Or you could work the same 10 hours per weekend and need less than 10 hours per workday to do the rest. Either way, you're much less likely to burn out because you're working a less unreasonable number of hours.

And you're still getting paid almost as richly for each hour you're putting in. You're just not having to put in quite so many.


As an aside, I think it's important to point out that the salary data on that chart comes from a 2005 survey. Still a helpful breakdown, but with some pre-ITE data points.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:07 pm

smokyroom26 wrote:
As an aside, I think it's important to point out that the salary data on that chart comes from a 2005 survey. Still a helpful breakdown, but with some pre-ITE data points.


Pre-taxes too.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.