Is WLRK worth it? Forum

[Anonymous User]

A person smart enough to get an offer from WLRK would never ask a question like this. Only those wanting to do litigation that have offers from better litigation firms turn down WLRK. One never turns down WLRK to go work at Cravath or DPW. That just never happens. You work for 80~100 hours a week in your typical V10 or V20 M&A shops. At least at WLRK, they pay you a lot more, give you more responsibilities and more complex tasks relative to your class your so you can level up faster, and give you the best exit options. This is not even a question if you want to do transactional work.

[Buglaw]

Yes, it’s worth it. There is no work-life balance in any of nyc V10s. You might as well work some more and get paid more.

This is terrible advice. First, is the discussion restricted to NYC? Most other cities have better QOL and lower COL. Second, and more importantly, not all hours are the same. Thinking about the additional work at Wachtell in terms of how it affects the free time you would have at another V10 really puts into perspective just how much more work 3000 hours is compared to, say, 2200 hours.

If you really think you are going to work only 2200 hours, I would advise you to look at other options than biglaw. This is coming from someone who just billed close to 3000 hours last year at a v10 m&a group (OP mentioned m&a and wachtell, so unless he/she is considering accepting an offer from some non-nyc biglaw doing something other than m&a, I don’t think this is a terrible advice).

I know several people at Wachtell. They billed close to 4000 hours last year and are projected to surpass that this year. Let's not trivialize just how much more you are working at Wachtell. Good rule of thumb is you will work about 1000 more hours than at your V10.

They are lying to you. I don't believe 4000 hours is physically possible. That's 80 billed hours 50 hours a week. If they did bill 4000 hours, that might be the most anyone has ever billed at any firm ever.

[Anonymous User]

A person smart enough to get an offer from WLRK would never ask a question like this. Only those wanting to do litigation that have offers from better litigation firms turn down WLRK. One never turns down WLRK to go work at Cravath or DPW. That just never happens. You work for 80~100 hours a week in your typical V10 or V20 M&A shops. At least at WLRK, they pay you a lot more, give you more responsibilities and more complex tasks relative to your class your so you can level up faster, and give you the best exit options. This is not even a question if you want to do transactional work.

The yield rate at my HYS for Wachtell transactional is around 50% historically. Higher than other firms, yes, but good portion turn them down for other firms in V10 and V20.

Yes, compensation is better but people don’t want to work 1000+ more billable hours when it’s already a sucky job. Again, let’s not trivialize the trade offs for working at Wachtell. People billed close to 4000 hours last year and are projected to shatter that this year.

People are freaking out this year because it’s been absurdly busy and are billing close to 3000 hours. Can you picture yourself replicating this year day in and day out for 3 years? For 5? For 8? Because that’s just the normal course of business at Wachtell.

[Anonymous User]

Yes, it’s worth it. There is no work-life balance in any of nyc V10s. You might as well work some more and get paid more.

This is terrible advice. First, is the discussion restricted to NYC? Most other cities have better QOL and lower COL. Second, and more importantly, not all hours are the same. Thinking about the additional work at Wachtell in terms of how it affects the free time you would have at another V10 really puts into perspective just how much more work 3000 hours is compared to, say, 2200 hours.

If you really think you are going to work only 2200 hours, I would advise you to look at other options than biglaw. This is coming from someone who just billed close to 3000 hours last year at a v10 m&a group (OP mentioned m&a and wachtell, so unless he/she is considering accepting an offer from some non-nyc biglaw doing something other than m&a, I don’t think this is a terrible advice).

I know several people at Wachtell. They billed close to 4000 hours last year and are projected to surpass that this year. Let's not trivialize just how much more you are working at Wachtell. Good rule of thumb is you will work about 1000 more hours than at your V10.

They are lying to you. I don't believe 4000 hours is physically possible. That's 80 billed hours 50 hours a week. If they did bill 4000 hours, that might be the most anyone has ever billed at any firm ever.

....my dude, at this rate I'm projected to get near 4000 hours this year at my firm. I haven't had a weekend off in months.

It's been hell but at least I comfort myself with the knowledge that this is an aberration and (hopefully) will get back to more sustainable 2000-2500 hours. Wachtell is truly like working banking hours (hence, why their compensation comes closest to banking).

[Anonymous User]

4,000 in a year where courthouses were closed for two month, deal value in H12020 dropped 53% and volume dropped 30%. Yeah, sure. WLRK corporate associates (like everyone else) were twiddling their thumbs for over a month before pivoting to other shit and eventually getting slammed in H2.

As the above poster said, your friends are lying to you.

[Anonymous User]

A person smart enough to get an offer from WLRK would never ask a question like this. Only those wanting to do litigation that have offers from better litigation firms turn down WLRK.

This is not really accurate. At my school, WLRK acceptance rate varies between 50-100% by year, and not everyone goes into litigation. Some choose top firms in other markets, especially DC. Also, it does not account for self-selection in the bidding/interview processes or address the question of whether everyone should choose WLRK over the other NY V10s.

[nealric]

I suppose it's possible that someone at WLRK billed 4,000 hours, but I simply don't believe it's ever been done without some pretty generous padding. They were famously one of the last holdouts against itemized bills (don't know if that's still the case) and also do some deals on contingency, so I suppose you could basically just bill for all the time you are physically at the office.

People talk about "80 hour weeks" as almost a shorthand for working long hours, but I don't believe anybody is truly actively producing meaningful work product for nearly 80 full hours a week for 52 weeks straight. That would not only require doing literally nothing but working, eating, and maybe sleeping, but would require an inhuman ability to concentrate for long periods of time.

[Anonymous User]

Yes, it’s worth it. There is no work-life balance in any of nyc V10s. You might as well work some more and get paid more.

This is terrible advice. First, is the discussion restricted to NYC? Most other cities have better QOL and lower COL. Second, and more importantly, not all hours are the same. Thinking about the additional work at Wachtell in terms of how it affects the free time you would have at another V10 really puts into perspective just how much more work 3000 hours is compared to, say, 2200 hours.

If you really think you are going to work only 2200 hours, I would advise you to look at other options than biglaw. This is coming from someone who just billed close to 3000 hours last year at a v10 m&a group (OP mentioned m&a and wachtell, so unless he/she is considering accepting an offer from some non-nyc biglaw doing something other than m&a, I don’t think this is a terrible advice).

I know several people at Wachtell. They billed close to 4000 hours last year and are projected to surpass that this year. Let's not trivialize just how much more you are working at Wachtell. Good rule of thumb is you will work about 1000 more hours than at your V10.

There's no way people are generally billing 4000 hours a year. Not possible.

But I do agree that people are not appreciating the difference between the top M&A shops and Wachtell. I thought there was some NALP study that showed Wachtell associated worked 10 full hours a week more than the #2 firm (I think it was S&C). That's a huge difference.

[Anonymous User]

I suppose it's possible that someone at WLRK billed 4,000 hours, but I simply don't believe it's ever been done without some pretty generous padding. They were famously one of the last holdouts against itemized bills (don't know if that's still the case) and also do some deals on contingency, so I suppose you could basically just bill for all the time you are physically at the office.

People talk about "80 hour weeks" as almost a shorthand for working long hours, but I don't believe anybody is truly actively producing meaningful work product for nearly 80 full hours a week for 52 weeks straight. That would not only require doing literally nothing but working, eating, and maybe sleeping, but would require an inhuman ability to concentrate for long periods of time.

WLRK hours are generously inflated on that basis, not that anyone has ever billed 4K hours. But as far I know, they still don't itemize their bills, and my friend that worked there (about a decade ago) usually just billed the entire time they were in the office. The clients don't complain about the bills.

[Buglaw]

I suppose it's possible that someone at WLRK billed 4,000 hours, but I simply don't believe it's ever been done without some pretty generous padding. They were famously one of the last holdouts against itemized bills (don't know if that's still the case) and also do some deals on contingency, so I suppose you could basically just bill for all the time you are physically at the office.

People talk about "80 hour weeks" as almost a shorthand for working long hours, but I don't believe anybody is truly actively producing meaningful work product for nearly 80 full hours a week for 52 weeks straight. That would not only require doing literally nothing but working, eating, and maybe sleeping, but would require an inhuman ability to concentrate for long periods of time.

WLRK hours are generously inflated on that basis, not that anyone has ever billed 4K hours. But as far I know, they still don't itemize their bills, and my friend that worked there (about a decade ago) usually just billed the entire time they were in the office. The clients don't complain about the bills.

This sounds plausible. Obviously someone could lie their way to 4000 hours. Spending 80 plus hours a week at work is not really even outside what happens to a lot of corporate associates in the v10. So, clearly people can lie their way to 4000 hours.

But whenever I bill 80ish hours in a week, I'm "at work" much more than that and I am probably averaging 4-5 hours a sleep a night (Monday through Sunday, so including weekends). I am also doing nothing but working and sleeping. So to billing 4000 hours a year, means people are doing nothing but working and sleeping and averaged probably 4 hours a night of sleep for 365 days a year while "at work" probably 18-20 hours a day. I don't believe it's physically possible.

I also worked with someone who was a banker at Goldman. He told me it really wasn't much/any worse than what we were doing (but different). That year my hours were high, but I didn't hit 3K. I call bullshit on anyone's claim of 4000 hours.

[Anonymous User]

A couple of years ago, people posted on Fishbowl that the average number of hours at Wachtell was 3500 (https://www.fishbowlapp.com/post/5ddeba ... 0021f07044). Not a typo, 3500 hours... and that's in a "normal" year, before market went absolutely bonkers this year and everyone's life turned to shit.

The fastest way I can tell that someone has no idea how much you actually work at Wachtell is when they say that their V10 hours are comparable. No, it's an additional 1000 billable hours to be in the same ballpark (and for what it's worth, I know several people at Wachtell, including people I would 100% trust with my life).

Again, to tie back to the topic, is the extra compensation worth the additional 1000 hours? Some will say yes, others will say no. At my HYS, the yield rate for Wachtell hovers around 50% - still higher than other firms but not a no brainer like some people make it out to be.

[jotarokujo]

A person smart enough to get an offer from WLRK would never ask a question like this. Only those wanting to do litigation that have offers from better litigation firms turn down WLRK. One never turns down WLRK to go work at Cravath or DPW. That just never happens. You work for 80~100 hours a week in your typical V10 or V20 M&A shops. At least at WLRK, they pay you a lot more, give you more responsibilities and more complex tasks relative to your class your so you can level up faster, and give you the best exit options. This is not even a question if you want to do transactional work.

eh i know a few transactional folks who turned down WLRK for simpson/dpw/latham types

[Anonymous User]

I suppose it's possible that someone at WLRK billed 4,000 hours, but I simply don't believe it's ever been done without some pretty generous padding. They were famously one of the last holdouts against itemized bills (don't know if that's still the case) and also do some deals on contingency, so I suppose you could basically just bill for all the time you are physically at the office.

People talk about "80 hour weeks" as almost a shorthand for working long hours, but I don't believe anybody is truly actively producing meaningful work product for nearly 80 full hours a week for 52 weeks straight. That would not only require doing literally nothing but working, eating, and maybe sleeping, but would require an inhuman ability to concentrate for long periods of time.

WLRK hours are generously inflated on that basis, not that anyone has ever billed 4K hours. But as far I know, they still don't itemize their bills, and my friend that worked there (about a decade ago) usually just billed the entire time they were in the office. The clients don't complain about the bills.

This sounds plausible. Obviously someone could lie their way to 4000 hours. Spending 80 plus hours a week at work is not really even outside what happens to a lot of corporate associates in the v10. So, clearly people can lie their way to 4000 hours.

But whenever I bill 80ish hours in a week, I'm "at work" much more than that and I am probably averaging 4-5 hours a sleep a night (Monday through Sunday, so including weekends). I am also doing nothing but working and sleeping. So to billing 4000 hours a year, means people are doing nothing but working and sleeping and averaged probably 4 hours a night of sleep for 365 days a year while "at work" probably 18-20 hours a day. I don't believe it's physically possible.

I also worked with someone who was a banker at Goldman. He told me it really wasn't much/any worse than what we were doing (but different). That year my hours were high, but I didn't hit 3K. I call bullshit on anyone's claim of 4000 hours.

Respectfully dude, and I'm sure you're a fantastic lawyer, but this is something that is clearly outside of your lane and something you don't know too much about. First with regards to banking: it was only a couple of months ago where the infamous Goldman report leaked and Goldman's bankers begged to work only 80-hour weeks: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... nd=premium

(And because you seem like the type to point out the sample size of the report, I can also tell you I worked in ibanking before HYS (one of Goldman/JP Morgan/Morgan Stanley) and genuinely was at work 90-100 hours a week for the entire year. When it got super busy, it approached 110+ hours. Other ibankers will tell you the same thing.)

Other than this year, biglaw hours is like a vacation compared to my banking hours... and when all this shit slows down (hopefully soon), I will get back down to 2000-2500 hours. People at Wachtell will get back down to 3500 hours.

Again, there's a reason why Wachtell compensation is higher. It's not because you're only working a bit more than your V10, V20, etc. You're working a whole lot more, like actual ibanking hours. Ultimately, it's a personal question of whether the extra hours is worth the extra compensation.

[Joachim2017]

A person smart enough to get an offer from WLRK would never ask a question like this. Only those wanting to do litigation that have offers from better litigation firms turn down WLRK. One never turns down WLRK to go work at Cravath or DPW. That just never happens. You work for 80~100 hours a week in your typical V10 or V20 M&A shops. At least at WLRK, they pay you a lot more, give you more responsibilities and more complex tasks relative to your class your so you can level up faster, and give you the best exit options. This is not even a question if you want to do transactional work.

We've covered this topic ad nauseum on this thread, and I can only assume this poster is a very junior person or maybe not even an actual lawyer. Smart, dedicated people on the transactional side turn down offers from WLRK. There are hard facts and data that prove this. There are other worthwhile pursuits in life with more value than the marginal increase in salary for the MUCH higher marginal cost of the additional WLRK hours. To believe that "One never turns down WLRK to go work at Cravath or DPW. That just never happens" says something about you more than anything else.

[nealric]

I suppose it's possible that someone at WLRK billed 4,000 hours, but I simply don't believe it's ever been done without some pretty generous padding. They were famously one of the last holdouts against itemized bills (don't know if that's still the case) and also do some deals on contingency, so I suppose you could basically just bill for all the time you are physically at the office.

People talk about "80 hour weeks" as almost a shorthand for working long hours, but I don't believe anybody is truly actively producing meaningful work product for nearly 80 full hours a week for 52 weeks straight. That would not only require doing literally nothing but working, eating, and maybe sleeping, but would require an inhuman ability to concentrate for long periods of time.

WLRK hours are generously inflated on that basis, not that anyone has ever billed 4K hours. But as far I know, they still don't itemize their bills, and my friend that worked there (about a decade ago) usually just billed the entire time they were in the office. The clients don't complain about the bills.

This sounds plausible. Obviously someone could lie their way to 4000 hours. Spending 80 plus hours a week at work is not really even outside what happens to a lot of corporate associates in the v10. So, clearly people can lie their way to 4000 hours.

But whenever I bill 80ish hours in a week, I'm "at work" much more than that and I am probably averaging 4-5 hours a sleep a night (Monday through Sunday, so including weekends). I am also doing nothing but working and sleeping. So to billing 4000 hours a year, means people are doing nothing but working and sleeping and averaged probably 4 hours a night of sleep for 365 days a year while "at work" probably 18-20 hours a day. I don't believe it's physically possible.

I also worked with someone who was a banker at Goldman. He told me it really wasn't much/any worse than what we were doing (but different). That year my hours were high, but I didn't hit 3K. I call bullshit on anyone's claim of 4000 hours.

Respectfully dude, and I'm sure you're a fantastic lawyer, but this is something that is clearly outside of your lane and something you don't know too much about. First with regards to banking: it was only a couple of months ago where the infamous Goldman report leaked and Goldman's bankers begged to work only 80-hour weeks: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... nd=premium

(And because you seem like the type to point out the sample size of the report, I can also tell you I worked in ibanking before HYS (one of Goldman/JP Morgan/Morgan Stanley) and genuinely was at work 90-100 hours a week for the entire year. When it got super busy, it approached 110+ hours. Other ibankers will tell you the same thing.)

Other than this year, biglaw hours is like a vacation compared to my banking hours... and when all this shit slows down (hopefully soon), I will get back down to 2000-2500 hours. People at Wachtell will get back down to 3500 hours.

Again, there's a reason why Wachtell compensation is higher. It's not because you're only working a bit more than your V10, V20, etc. You're working a whole lot more, like actual ibanking hours. Ultimately, it's a personal question of whether the extra hours is worth the extra compensation.

The difference here is "at work" vs "working." Of course someone can physically be in the office for 4,000 or even 5,000 hours. That's different from actually producing meaningful work product in a way that you could truly ethically bill for your time.

But I also remain skeptical of anybody who claims to do 100 hours a week for an entire year in any capacity. That's working an average of over 14 hours a day 7 days a week with zero days of vacation. If every banker did that, I would have never met a banker outside of work because they'd never have entered a social setting. Heck, that basically means never going to a restaurant, the grocery store, ordering all of your meals- basically never going any place other than work and home. And then, basically never doing anything at home other than bathing and sleeping.

[jotarokujo]

[/quote]

The difference here is "at work" vs "working." Of course someone can physically be in the office for 4,000 or even 5,000 hours. That's different from actually producing meaningful work product in a way that you could truly ethically bill for your time.

But I also remain skeptical of anybody who claims to do 100 hours a week for an entire year in any capacity. That's working an average of over 14 hours a day 7 days a week with zero days of vacation. If every banker did that, I would have never met a banker outside of work because they'd never have entered a social setting. Heck, that basically means never going to a restaurant, the grocery store, ordering all of your meals- basically never going any place other than work and home. And then, basically never doing anything at home other than bathing and sleeping.
[/quote]

do you think bankers spend a lower percentage of their "at work" time actually "working" than folks in biglaw?

[Anonymous User]

I have some familiarity with WLRK hours. Litigators are usually between 2400-3000. Corporate folks are usually around 2600-3100. No one is coming close to 4,000 most years, and if so they’d get a talking to from the Exec. Comm.

The compensation, health insurance, meal policy, lack of cost-sensitive clients, and other “perks” make it worth it for many, at least in the short term. (Also the types of matters that come to the firm: you sorta have to “like” the law to work at a place like WLRK.) Like biglaw generally, most folks don’t find biglaw “worth it” for the long haul.

[Anonymous User]

I’m with Nealric on this one. There have been times when I was physically in the office (or lately, physically in my home office) for close to 16 hours a day for 7 to 10 days at a time, but that doesn’t translate to that level of billing.

It also turns you into a physical and mental wreck in fairly short order, no matter how much you “love the law”. Even the most deal hardened, stress-proof M&A warriors balance out a 350 hr month with a chill couple of weeks.

Over-exaggeration of hours worked is one of the weirdest and most damaging things about our work culture in this country. People can put in incredible efforts in measured stints, but to ethically bill 4000 hours would be the end of almost everyone.

Have a watch of Buds Class 234 on YouTube sometime - it follows a class through the early stages of Navy Seal selection, and is very instructive on just how quickly and intensely sleep deprivation and high stress environments turns motivated and fit young men into jelly.

To the law school students reading this thread - billing 50 hours in a week can feel like a real grind, and that’s normal. You don’t need to tell people that you billed 100 hours to feel validated when you’re out to dinner with your i-banker friends.

[Anonymous User]

[Deleted because I asked a question discussed in detail above]

[Anonymous User]

I’m with Nealric on this one. There have been times when I was physically in the office (or lately, physically in my home office) for close to 16 hours a day for 7 to 10 days at a time, but that doesn’t translate to that level of billing.

It also turns you into a physical and mental wreck in fairly short order, no matter how much you “love the law”. Even the most deal hardened, stress-proof M&A warriors balance out a 350 hr month with a chill couple of weeks.

Over-exaggeration of hours worked is one of the weirdest and most damaging things about our work culture in this country. People can put in incredible efforts in measured stints, but to ethically bill 4000 hours would be the end of almost everyone.

Have a watch of Buds Class 234 on YouTube sometime - it follows a class through the early stages of Navy Seal selection, and is very instructive on just how quickly and intensely sleep deprivation and high stress environments turns motivated and fit young men into jelly.

To the law school students reading this thread - billing 50 hours in a week can feel like a real grind, and that’s normal. You don’t need to tell people that you billed 100 hours to feel validated when you’re out to dinner with your i-banker friends.

Genuinely think that the law students in this thread do not realize that time spent logging into their computer, going to the bathroom, getting up to pour yourself coffee etc. adds up and is not billable time. A Goldman banker goes into the office, but takes time peeing and eating and even responding to a text from Mom--that gets counted in her 100 hour a week calculation because its all time between log-on and log-off. That's distinct from hours billed where its timer on timer off every time I realize a day dream lasted too long or I spent a little too much time trying to get out my previous night's dinner.

[jotarokujo]

Genuinely think that the law students in this thread do not realize that time spent logging into their computer, going to the bathroom, getting up to pour yourself coffee etc. adds up and is not billable time. A Goldman banker goes into the office, but takes time peeing and eating and even responding to a text from Mom--that gets counted in her 100 hour a week calculation because its all time between log-on and log-off. That's distinct from hours billed where its timer on timer off every time I realize a day dream lasted too long or I spent a little too much time trying to get out my previous night's dinner.

but even with all of non-billable stuff added, the "average" week for biglaw is nowhere near 100 hours, it's more like 60

[nealric]

do you think bankers spend a lower percentage of their "at work" time actually "working" than folks in biglaw?

Don't really have an opinion on that. Since bankers don't have to bill time, they don't need to track the portion of the time at work spend actually working. Banking is also different because there are a lot more tiers (not just associate -> partner). Your 22 year old analyst's work situation is going to be very different from a 40 year old MDs work.

Agree with comments above that some folks have a perverse culture of bragging about how many hours they work. You'll sometimes hear some folks who were on a particularly intense deal where they managed to bill 300 hours in a month talk about how they are "on track" to bill 3,600 hours, when there is absolutely no way they are sustaining that pace for 12 full months.

Perhaps I'm just weak (I did exit biglaw at the first good in-house opportunity), but I would feel pretty burned out after a single month of billing 200. Most of my months were between 160 and 180. But even billing 2,000 hours is pretty intense by normal people standards. The difference between 160 and 200 doesn't sound that bad until you realize that's cramming an entire "extra" work week into your month.

[Anonymous User]

do you think bankers spend a lower percentage of their "at work" time actually "working" than folks in biglaw?

Don't really have an opinion on that. Since bankers don't have to bill time, they don't need to track the portion of the time at work spend actually working.

Agree with comments above that some folks have a perverse culture of bragging about how many hours they work. You'll sometimes hear some folks who were on a particularly intense deal where they managed to bill 300 hours in a month talk about how they are "on track" to bill 3,600 hours, when there is absolutely no way they are sustaining that pace for 12 full months.

Perhaps I'm just weak (I did exit biglaw at the first good in-house opportunity), but I would feel pretty burned out after a single month of billing 200. Most of my months were between 160 and 180. But even billing 2,000 hours is pretty intense by normal people standards. The difference between 160 and 200 doesn't sound that bad until you realize that's cramming an entire "extra" work week into your month.

I think you got out at the right time dude. Not even exaggerating but people have legit been billing 300+ hours/month for the past several months and no signs of slowing down. COVID has destroyed any pretense of work-life balance/separation.

[nealric]

Genuinely think that the law students in this thread do not realize that time spent logging into their computer, going to the bathroom, getting up to pour yourself coffee etc. adds up and is not billable time. A Goldman banker goes into the office, but takes time peeing and eating and even responding to a text from Mom--that gets counted in her 100 hour a week calculation because its all time between log-on and log-off. That's distinct from hours billed where its timer on timer off every time I realize a day dream lasted too long or I spent a little too much time trying to get out my previous night's dinner.

but even with all of non-billable stuff added, the "average" week for biglaw is nowhere near 100 hours, it's more like 60

I don't believe the "average" week for any profession (bankers included) is truly 100 hours. People may put in the occasional 100 hour week, but not for 52 weeks straight. Perhaps some medical residents did that (before the work hour restrictions), but they literally have beds for their use in hospitals. They aren't just commuting home to their apartments after work.

[nealric]

do you think bankers spend a lower percentage of their "at work" time actually "working" than folks in biglaw?

Don't really have an opinion on that. Since bankers don't have to bill time, they don't need to track the portion of the time at work spend actually working.

Agree with comments above that some folks have a perverse culture of bragging about how many hours they work. You'll sometimes hear some folks who were on a particularly intense deal where they managed to bill 300 hours in a month talk about how they are "on track" to bill 3,600 hours, when there is absolutely no way they are sustaining that pace for 12 full months.

Perhaps I'm just weak (I did exit biglaw at the first good in-house opportunity), but I would feel pretty burned out after a single month of billing 200. Most of my months were between 160 and 180. But even billing 2,000 hours is pretty intense by normal people standards. The difference between 160 and 200 doesn't sound that bad until you realize that's cramming an entire "extra" work week into your month.

I think you got out at the right time dude. Not even exaggerating but people have legit been billing 300+ hours/month for the past several months and no signs of slowing down. COVID has destroyed any pretense of work-life balance/separation.

That's brutal. My spouse is still in biglaw and isn't pulling those sorts of hours, but isn't in NYC M&A (or anything close to it). Anyhow, I've been out of biglaw for nearly a decade at this point.