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.
User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby Old Gregg » Sun Sep 04, 2011 2:02 pm

Logical fallacy: Assumes direct correlation between employee leverage and ratio of "grunt"/"quality" work.


It might not necessarily be true, but that doesn't mean he's wrong in this instance...

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 04, 2011 3:40 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
Logical fallacy: Assumes direct correlation between employee leverage and ratio of "grunt"/"quality" work.


It might not necessarily be true, but that doesn't mean he's wrong in this instance...


He's at least partly wrong. I've spoken to a senior associate at WLRK at length about work assignments and staffing structure on projects. They're staffed with 2 or 3 associates just like they are at S&C. Maybe because there are just that much more deals going on at S&C.

Anyway, even if you get slightly more exposure to high level matters a bit earlier, you're basically sacrificing your personal life for the time you're working there. I guess for some that's all right, but it sounds a lot easier to say than it is to do.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Sun Sep 04, 2011 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ToTransferOrNot
Posts: 1928
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:45 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby ToTransferOrNot » Sun Sep 04, 2011 3:44 pm

"Should I work at Wachtell" begins and ends with the "extra hours vs. extra money and greater partnership prospects" calculus. All of this silliness about kinds of eals, quality of work, blah blah, is ridiculous.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 04, 2011 3:47 pm

ToTransferOrNot wrote:"Should I work at Wachtell" begins and ends with the "extra hours vs. extra money and greater partnership prospects" calculus. All of this silliness about kinds of eals, quality of work, blah blah, is ridiculous.


I calculated that even with a 45% base pay bonus (bringing the total compensation to 240k), the hourly compensation at Wachtell at 2900 hours billed (after taxes) is only about $1 or $2 higher than it would be for someone billing 2300 hours at 175k (including spring bonus).

ToTransferOrNot
Posts: 1928
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:45 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby ToTransferOrNot » Sun Sep 04, 2011 3:51 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
ToTransferOrNot wrote:"Should I work at Wachtell" begins and ends with the "extra hours vs. extra money and greater partnership prospects" calculus. All of this silliness about kinds of eals, quality of work, blah blah, is ridiculous.


I calculated that even with a 45% base pay bonus (bringing the total compensation to 240k), the hourly compensation at Wachtell at 2900 hours billed (after taxes) is only about $1 or $2 higher than it would be for someone billing 2300 hours at 175k (including spring bonus).


1.) The bonus is generally higher than that (it was 100% at some point in the mid-2000s, and didn't drop below 50% even in 2008/2009);
2.) That there isn't a significant raise in base pay doesn't mean it isn't a significant raise. If your leisure hours are worth more than the hourly rate, you obviously don't want to go;
3.) Does not factor in the (vastly higher) partnership prospects;
4.) Keep in mind that WLRK still has a lot of perks (i.e. matching 401k, partnership pension) that many firms have dropped entirely (401k match - does any firm aside from WLRK still have this?) or significantly cut back on.

ruski
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 10:45 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby ruski » Sun Sep 04, 2011 4:07 pm

may be wrong about this, but i remember an associate during my interview saying the firm provides lunch for associates. maybe she was referring to the summer program, but i dont think so.

User avatar
quakeroats
Posts: 1399
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:34 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby quakeroats » Sun Sep 04, 2011 5:03 pm

ruski wrote:may be wrong about this, but i remember an associate during my interview saying the firm provides lunch for associates. maybe she was referring to the summer program, but i dont think so.


I've heard lunch is free as long as it's reasonable and you eat it while you work.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 04, 2011 5:16 pm

ToTransferOrNot wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
ToTransferOrNot wrote:"Should I work at Wachtell" begins and ends with the "extra hours vs. extra money and greater partnership prospects" calculus. All of this silliness about kinds of eals, quality of work, blah blah, is ridiculous.


I calculated that even with a 45% base pay bonus (bringing the total compensation to 240k), the hourly compensation at Wachtell at 2900 hours billed (after taxes) is only about $1 or $2 higher than it would be for someone billing 2300 hours at 175k (including spring bonus).


1.) The bonus is generally higher than that (it was 100% at some point in the mid-2000s, and didn't drop below 50% even in 2008/2009);
2.) That there isn't a significant raise in base pay doesn't mean it isn't a significant raise. If your leisure hours are worth more than the hourly rate, you obviously don't want to go;
3.) Does not factor in the (vastly higher) partnership prospects;
4.) Keep in mind that WLRK still has a lot of perks (i.e. matching 401k, partnership pension) that many firms have dropped entirely (401k match - does any firm aside from WLRK still have this?) or significantly cut back on.


1) I've heard the 100% bonus was an anomaly. ATL quoted a bonus of 45% for 1st-year associates that increases to 80% as you rise through the ranks.
2) Sure, that's fair. I guess I more greatly value getting 8 hours of sleep and 1-2 hours of relaxation time than an extra $200 a day and only 6 hours of sleep with no relaxation time.
3) I guess if you're willing to have absolutely no life for 7-8 years (see #2) then yes, the increase in partnership prospects is relevant.
4) No clue on this. I guess a 401k match is pretty nice. Would like to know the details though.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby Old Gregg » Sun Sep 04, 2011 5:18 pm

They also pay for internet access at home and have a frozen yogurt machine.

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby dresden doll » Sun Sep 04, 2011 5:56 pm

Renzo wrote:
Danteshek wrote:A high school classmate of mine (YLS '07) just left the dark side (Wachtell) to go to the darker side (Goldman Sachs). I kinda feel sorry for him.


Yeah. I often feel sorry for rich and successful people at the pinnacle of their chosen profession.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 04, 2011 6:56 pm

It definitely is quite true that associates get more responsibility there. Having sit in on calls, it was pretty typical for a 3rd-5th year on Wachtell's end to be directly dealing with a 7-8th year/partner on the other side.

As for bonuses, 100% isn't that common but 45% is more of an anomaly, the firm tends to target 80% bonuses.

As for exit options, sure its hard to break into PE without having prior banking exp, but it sure seemed as though a much higher proportion of WLRK associates exited into front-office HF and banking positions than at other peer firms (DPW, S&C, etc.). Additionally, a higher proportion of WLRK associates seem to go into academia than at other firms (granted, this might be because of their better credentials coming in).

As I said before, there are lots of good reasons to not take a WLRK offer (city, desire to stick to an appellate practice group/boutique litigation firm) and this is reflected in its yield which is typically around 60-70%. However, there is no real reason to turn down WLRK for another BIGLAW firm in NYC. The lifestyle argument seems to get thrown around and having worked with and for a number of NYC firms, I can say that the biggest difference is in how well firms hide the workload to their summers. Some, like WLRK and Cravath, are open about how hard their associates work, others, like S&C and Cleary, seem to try to paint a brighter picture. In the end, the difference in work hours isn't that major. Sure, you can fly below the radar at a bigger firm and get away with working fewer hours, but an associate working towards making partner at any of the V10s isn't working that much less than a WLRK associate.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 04, 2011 7:36 pm

Anonymous User wrote:It definitely is quite true that associates get more responsibility there. Having sit in on calls, it was pretty typical for a 3rd-5th year on Wachtell's end to be directly dealing with a 7-8th year/partner on the other side.

As for bonuses, 100% isn't that common but 45% is more of an anomaly, the firm tends to target 80% bonuses.


ATL mentioned that 1st-years start at 45% but that it goes up to 80% or so at year 4 or 5. That seems reasonable.

As for exit options, sure its hard to break into PE without having prior banking exp, but it sure seemed as though a much higher proportion of WLRK associates exited into front-office HF and banking positions than at other peer firms (DPW, S&C, etc.). Additionally, a higher proportion of WLRK associates seem to go into academia than at other firms (granted, this might be because of their better credentials coming in).


I'm sure all of this is because WLRK typically hires people with significant WE -- whether it be IBanking, consulting or PE -- that therefore translates into a better resume for applying to banks and HF. Although I'm sure there is a small boost coming from Wachtell as opposed to, say, S&C. However, I know people from S&C who also break into banking so it's not unheard of. But then again, if you can get into Wachtell, you can typically get into an IBank prior to law school. They're looking for candidates from top undergrads in addition to top law schools. As for academia, that's pretty obvious. People getting into Wachtell are usually at least in the top 10% and/or on law review.

As I said before, there are lots of good reasons to not take a WLRK offer (city, desire to stick to an appellate practice group/boutique litigation firm) and this is reflected in its yield which is typically around 60-70%. However, there is no real reason to turn down WLRK for another BIGLAW firm in NYC. The lifestyle argument seems to get thrown around and having worked with and for a number of NYC firms, I can say that the biggest difference is in how well firms hide the workload to their summers. Some, like WLRK and Cravath, are open about how hard their associates work, others, like S&C and Cleary, seem to try to paint a brighter picture. In the end, the difference in work hours isn't that major. Sure, you can fly below the radar at a bigger firm and get away with working fewer hours, but an associate working towards making partner at any of the V10s isn't working that much less than a WLRK associate.


I've spoken to a number of associates at S&C, DPW, Cleary and STB. Their typical billable hours per year range from 2100 to 2500. I've also spoken to associates at Wachtell and they say 2700 is on the low end with 3000 being the norm. 3100-3200 if you really want partner. As I said before, that's the difference between having a life and not having a life. You're probably right, if you want partner at any V10 you'll be working more hours than the typical associate, but the difference at Wachtell is that you're forced into partner track hours. For many, that's a lifestyle they don't want even in the short term. A senior associate at the firm said he is looking at working 3500 hours this year and that it has been really tough on his family, but he wants partner. Guess that's what it takes.

FWIW, I know a Rhodes scholar from YLS who ended up picking Debevoise over Wachtell for the reasons outlined above.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:21 pm

i know a nyu summer who then turned them down for a v15 firm. crazy if you ask me.

CanuckObserver
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:19 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby CanuckObserver » Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:47 pm

Anonymous User wrote:i know a nyu summer who then turned them down for a v15 firm. crazy if you ask me.


I would say they were smart. He or she figured out from their summer that it was not a fit for them in the long run, and made a choice they felt was better for them instead of just going for the $ and "prestige" of Wachtell, despite what others thought of that choice.

Some people on here talk like an extra 500 - 1500 billable hours (assuming billables at most others at 2000 - 2500) is no big deal for the extra money, but that really is a huge amount, given billables are less than actual time at work, and it takes a toll on more than just your free time. Not only would I say that is not for everyone, I would say that is not for anyone but those willing to live, breathe, eat and dream Wachtell for what are years of your life that you will not get back.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:09 am

I think thread is filled with alot of sour people who got rejected by WLRK.

If your gonna work in NYC, you'd be a fool to work anywhere else, if you got an offer from WLRK. 2,000 hours is pretty much the floor in NYC biglaw. We all know how unpredictable the hours can be. As a result you will have NO LIFE. Or if you do have a life, it can be superseded by work at any time pretty much making it so that you don't have a life.

I would rather just work 3,000 and get paid 2X what you get paid for 2,000 hours. At least working 3,000 hours I know I'll be working all day every day. All the 2,000 hours your working mean is that you can't even plan for any of that free time you find so valuable.

Working in NYC biglaw sucks no matter where you are. I'll take $270k to have NO LIFE rather than getting $170k for a terrible life.

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby vamedic03 » Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:14 am

Anonymous User wrote:I think thread is filled with alot of sour people who got rejected by WLRK.

If your gonna work in NYC, you'd be a fool to work anywhere else, if you got an offer from WLRK. 2,000 hours is pretty much the floor in NYC biglaw. We all know how unpredictable the hours can be. As a result you will have NO LIFE. Or if you do have a life, it can be superseded by work at any time pretty much making it so that you don't have a life.

I would rather just work 3,000 and get paid 2X what you get paid for 2,000 hours. At least working 3,000 hours I know I'll be working all day every day. All the 2,000 hours your working mean is that you can't even plan for any of that free time you find so valuable.

Working in NYC biglaw sucks no matter where you are. I'll take $270k to have NO LIFE rather than getting $170k for a terrible life.


Why anonymous? If you're going to characterize people who are not posting anonymously as "sour people", how about you not use the anonymous feature?

CanuckObserver
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:19 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby CanuckObserver » Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:22 am

Anonymous User wrote:I think thread is filled with alot of sour people who got rejected by WLRK.

If your gonna work in NYC, you'd be a fool to work anywhere else, if you got an offer from WLRK. 2,000 hours is pretty much the floor in NYC biglaw. We all know how unpredictable the hours can be. As a result you will have NO LIFE. Or if you do have a life, it can be superseded by work at any time pretty much making it so that you don't have a life.

I would rather just work 3,000 and get paid 2X what you get paid for 2,000 hours. At least working 3,000 hours I know I'll be working all day every day. All the 2,000 hours your working mean is that you can't even plan for any of that free time you find so valuable.Working in NYC biglaw sucks no matter where you are. I'll take $270k to have NO LIFE rather than getting $170k for a terrible life.


No sour grapes here, but I certainly do bill hours. You do realize there is a difference between working 3,000 hours and billing 3,000 hours? An even bigger one between billing 2,000 and billing 3,000?

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby Renzo » Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:29 am

vamedic03 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I think thread is filled with alot of sour people who got rejected by WLRK.

If your gonna work in NYC, you'd be a fool to work anywhere else, if you got an offer from WLRK. 2,000 hours is pretty much the floor in NYC biglaw. We all know how unpredictable the hours can be. As a result you will have NO LIFE. Or if you do have a life, it can be superseded by work at any time pretty much making it so that you don't have a life.

I would rather just work 3,000 and get paid 2X what you get paid for 2,000 hours. At least working 3,000 hours I know I'll be working all day every day. All the 2,000 hours your working mean is that you can't even plan for any of that free time you find so valuable.

Working in NYC biglaw sucks no matter where you are. I'll take $270k to have NO LIFE rather than getting $170k for a terrible life.


Why anonymous? If you're going to characterize people who are not posting anonymously as "sour people", how about you not use the anonymous feature?


Give up, dood. You're being trolled to death.

ruski
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 10:45 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby ruski » Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:15 am

CanuckObserver wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I think thread is filled with alot of sour people who got rejected by WLRK.

If your gonna work in NYC, you'd be a fool to work anywhere else, if you got an offer from WLRK. 2,000 hours is pretty much the floor in NYC biglaw. We all know how unpredictable the hours can be. As a result you will have NO LIFE. Or if you do have a life, it can be superseded by work at any time pretty much making it so that you don't have a life.

I would rather just work 3,000 and get paid 2X what you get paid for 2,000 hours. At least working 3,000 hours I know I'll be working all day every day. All the 2,000 hours your working mean is that you can't even plan for any of that free time you find so valuable.Working in NYC biglaw sucks no matter where you are. I'll take $270k to have NO LIFE rather than getting $170k for a terrible life.


No sour grapes here, but I certainly do bill hours. You do realize there is a difference between working 3,000 hours and billing 3,000 hours? An even bigger one between billing 2,000 and billing 3,000?


i would have to disagree. i would think the more hours you bill, the more "efficient" you become - meaning your percentage of hours billed to hours worked decreases. when there is so much work to do that you are billing 3000 hours a year there is a much bigger and more steady flow of work coming in so you don't really have many days where you aren't billing anything and just twittling your thumbs from 9-5. there will ALWAYS be an opportunity to bill/work.

to add on, as the hours billed increases i would think padding your hours becomes more common/more severe as well. when you feel like you live in the office, i would think you are more prone to be less scrupulous with detailing your hours as you have 100 things going on at once.

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.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby Old Gregg » Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:18 am

ruski wrote:
CanuckObserver wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I think thread is filled with alot of sour people who got rejected by WLRK.

If your gonna work in NYC, you'd be a fool to work anywhere else, if you got an offer from WLRK. 2,000 hours is pretty much the floor in NYC biglaw. We all know how unpredictable the hours can be. As a result you will have NO LIFE. Or if you do have a life, it can be superseded by work at any time pretty much making it so that you don't have a life.

I would rather just work 3,000 and get paid 2X what you get paid for 2,000 hours. At least working 3,000 hours I know I'll be working all day every day. All the 2,000 hours your working mean is that you can't even plan for any of that free time you find so valuable.Working in NYC biglaw sucks no matter where you are. I'll take $270k to have NO LIFE rather than getting $170k for a terrible life.


No sour grapes here, but I certainly do bill hours. You do realize there is a difference between working 3,000 hours and billing 3,000 hours? An even bigger one between billing 2,000 and billing 3,000?


i would have to disagree. i would think the more hours you bill, the more "efficient" you become - meaning your percentage of hours billed to hours worked decreases. when there is so much work to do that you are billing 3000 hours a year there is a much bigger and more steady flow of work coming in so you don't really have many days where you aren't billing anything and just twittling your thumbs from 9-5. there will ALWAYS be an opportunity to bill/work.

to add on, as the hours billed increases i would think padding your hours becomes more common/more severe as well. when you feel like you live in the office, i would think you are more prone to be less scrupulous with detailing your hours as you have 100 things going on at once.

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.


Yup. Wanted to write this, but was too lazy.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:39 am

ruski wrote:
CanuckObserver wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I think thread is filled with alot of sour people who got rejected by WLRK.

If your gonna work in NYC, you'd be a fool to work anywhere else, if you got an offer from WLRK. 2,000 hours is pretty much the floor in NYC biglaw. We all know how unpredictable the hours can be. As a result you will have NO LIFE. Or if you do have a life, it can be superseded by work at any time pretty much making it so that you don't have a life.

I would rather just work 3,000 and get paid 2X what you get paid for 2,000 hours. At least working 3,000 hours I know I'll be working all day every day. All the 2,000 hours your working mean is that you can't even plan for any of that free time you find so valuable.Working in NYC biglaw sucks no matter where you are. I'll take $270k to have NO LIFE rather than getting $170k for a terrible life.


No sour grapes here, but I certainly do bill hours. You do realize there is a difference between working 3,000 hours and billing 3,000 hours? An even bigger one between billing 2,000 and billing 3,000?


i would have to disagree. i would think the more hours you bill, the more "efficient" you become - meaning your percentage of hours billed to hours worked decreases. when there is so much work to do that you are billing 3000 hours a year there is a much bigger and more steady flow of work coming in so you don't really have many days where you aren't billing anything and just twittling your thumbs from 9-5. there will ALWAYS be an opportunity to bill/work.

to add on, as the hours billed increases i would think padding your hours becomes more common/more severe as well. when you feel like you live in the office, i would think you are more prone to be less scrupulous with detailing your hours as you have 100 things going on at once.

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.


90 hours a week every single week is about what a former Wachtell associate told me he/she worked. They left after a year (but had paid off all their loans). They spoke highly of their experience, but you shouldn't understate the time commitment.

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 10:54 am

Anonymous User wrote:I think thread is filled with alot of sour people who got rejected by WLRK.

Hello again, same rising 2L who has yet to work in BigLaw.

The anon feature is not for anonymously lobbing insults at other posters. If you post in this thread again, it had better be free of remarks directed at other posters and provide some actual basis for the claims you're making. Otherwise you will be both outed and banned for repeated abuse of the anon feature. The choice is yours.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:59 am

Anonymous User wrote:
ruski wrote:
CanuckObserver wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I think thread is filled with alot of sour people who got rejected by WLRK.

If your gonna work in NYC, you'd be a fool to work anywhere else, if you got an offer from WLRK. 2,000 hours is pretty much the floor in NYC biglaw. We all know how unpredictable the hours can be. As a result you will have NO LIFE. Or if you do have a life, it can be superseded by work at any time pretty much making it so that you don't have a life.

I would rather just work 3,000 and get paid 2X what you get paid for 2,000 hours. At least working 3,000 hours I know I'll be working all day every day. All the 2,000 hours your working mean is that you can't even plan for any of that free time you find so valuable.Working in NYC biglaw sucks no matter where you are. I'll take $270k to have NO LIFE rather than getting $170k for a terrible life.


No sour grapes here, but I certainly do bill hours. You do realize there is a difference between working 3,000 hours and billing 3,000 hours? An even bigger one between billing 2,000 and billing 3,000?


i would have to disagree. i would think the more hours you bill, the more "efficient" you become - meaning your percentage of hours billed to hours worked decreases. when there is so much work to do that you are billing 3000 hours a year there is a much bigger and more steady flow of work coming in so you don't really have many days where you aren't billing anything and just twittling your thumbs from 9-5. there will ALWAYS be an opportunity to bill/work.

to add on, as the hours billed increases i would think padding your hours becomes more common/more severe as well. when you feel like you live in the office, i would think you are more prone to be less scrupulous with detailing your hours as you have 100 things going on at once.

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.


90 hours a week every single week is about what a former Wachtell associate told me he/she worked. They left after a year (but had paid off all their loans). They spoke highly of their experience, but you shouldn't understate the time commitment.


This.

The Wachtell interviewer at my school's OCI said you shouldn't plan to work at WLRK if you aren't prepared to work 100 hours per week. Every week.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby rayiner » Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:35 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I think thread is filled with alot of sour people who got rejected by WLRK.

If your gonna work in NYC, you'd be a fool to work anywhere else, if you got an offer from WLRK. 2,000 hours is pretty much the floor in NYC biglaw. We all know how unpredictable the hours can be. As a result you will have NO LIFE. Or if you do have a life, it can be superseded by work at any time pretty much making it so that you don't have a life.

I would rather just work 3,000 and get paid 2X what you get paid for 2,000 hours. At least working 3,000 hours I know I'll be working all day every day. All the 2,000 hours your working mean is that you can't even plan for any of that free time you find so valuable.

Working in NYC biglaw sucks no matter where you are. I'll take $270k to have NO LIFE rather than getting $170k for a terrible life.


While I think WLRK is worth it, 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.

CanuckObserver
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:19 am

Re: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Questions

Postby CanuckObserver » Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:20 pm

ruski wrote:
i would have to disagree. i would think the more hours you bill, the more "efficient" you become - meaning your percentage of hours billed to hours worked decreases. when there is so much work to do that you are billing 3000 hours a year there is a much bigger and more steady flow of work coming in so you don't really have many days where you aren't billing anything and just twittling your thumbs from 9-5. there will ALWAYS be an opportunity to bill/work.

to add on, as the hours billed increases i would think padding your hours becomes more common/more severe as well. when you feel like you live in the office, i would think you are more prone to be less scrupulous with detailing your hours as you have 100 things going on at once.

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.


Are you basing this on actual experience billing hours? Because, it really sounds like you are not. There is a lot of "I think" in there.

I can honestly say I do not spend my days twiddling my thumbs in my office either. Most people billing a "mere" 2,000 - 2,500 hours are hardly twiddling their thumbs at the office.

Having the work to get to bill 3,000+ hours does not negate how much work you have to do to get that 3,000+ billables or the toll it takes. If you do not think that means 80-100 hour work weeks, every week, you are naive.

If your dealing with having a higher billable target is to think that justifies unethically padding your hours, then I wish you the best at your future disciplinary hearings.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.