Wachtell compensation data points? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Employee compensation is proprietary, competitively-sensitive information for ... basically every employer in every industry? It's the Milbank-scale biglaw shops, with their unique oligopsonistic pricing, that are unusual. WLRK keeps this stuff close to the chest for the same reasons as any off-market firm, whether below-market, above-market or Jones Day weirdness

What are those reasons? Seems like it should be easy enough to spell them out, if they exist.

Usually companies don't like to share compensation bc they don't want Nancy to know that Jeff gets paid more for the same job. Individual hires have different negotiation leverage. But this doesn't hold for a lockstep environment.

[Anonymous User]

Does receiving a callback (but then no offer) during 2L OCI mean that I am plausibly in striking distance (w/r/t credentials, grades, etc.) for the purposes of WLRK lateral hiring? Or is the lateral process so niche/needs-based that the firm is looking for something else entirely?

[Anonymous User]

Employee compensation is proprietary, competitively-sensitive information for ... basically every employer in every industry? It's the Milbank-scale biglaw shops, with their unique oligopsonistic pricing, that are unusual. WLRK keeps this stuff close to the chest for the same reasons as any off-market firm, whether below-market, above-market or Jones Day weirdness

What are those reasons? Seems like it should be easy enough to spell them out, if they exist.

Usually companies don't like to share compensation bc they don't want Nancy to know that Jeff gets paid more for the same job. Individual hires have different negotiation leverage. But this doesn't hold for a lockstep environment.

Assuming the rumors are true, it may be that clients would probably balk at the fact that second years are taking home $500k a year. Even though second years at literally any V5 could be taking home the same—the partners at those firms are just greedier. Literally any V10 could reduce PPP by $100-$200k a partner (who are already making millions) and pay the average associate $500k+. Seriously. WLRK is a lot of things, but one thing the firm does well enough is share some of the pie.

It’s stupid but clients don’t care that the average K&E/DPW/S&C share partner is taking home $6m a year but would go bananas to learn that the third year staffed on the matter is hypothetically bringing home $500k+ post-COVID bonus, just like folks in this thread who were shocked to hear that.

And for the last time, no one is billing 4K hours. Unsure that non-corp associates are billing appreciably more than the top quarter of billers at Cravath/S&C.

Anon for obvious reasons. Before de-anon’ing, please just delete.

[Anonymous User]

Employee compensation is proprietary, competitively-sensitive information for ... basically every employer in every industry? It's the Milbank-scale biglaw shops, with their unique oligopsonistic pricing, that are unusual. WLRK keeps this stuff close to the chest for the same reasons as any off-market firm, whether below-market, above-market or Jones Day weirdness

What are those reasons? Seems like it should be easy enough to spell them out, if they exist.

Usually companies don't like to share compensation bc they don't want Nancy to know that Jeff gets paid more for the same job. Individual hires have different negotiation leverage. But this doesn't hold for a lockstep environment.

Info about pricing, compensation, etc. is per se competitively sensitive. Is that not obvious? It's still sensitive even without the specific consideration you mention (whether people at the same grade can get paid differently).

Again, basically every off-market firm, along with the vast majority of non-legal employers, treats this stuff as nonpublic information. It's intuitive to me that, once you have a general policy against divulging internal information, salary schedules would be included in such policy. Associates are generally happy to comply because there's literally no downside (versus the nonzero career risk involved in leaking stuff) to doing so.

[Anonymous User]

Employee compensation is proprietary, competitively-sensitive information for ... basically every employer in every industry? It's the Milbank-scale biglaw shops, with their unique oligopsonistic pricing, that are unusual. WLRK keeps this stuff close to the chest for the same reasons as any off-market firm, whether below-market, above-market or Jones Day weirdness

What are those reasons? Seems like it should be easy enough to spell them out, if they exist.

Usually companies don't like to share compensation bc they don't want Nancy to know that Jeff gets paid more for the same job. Individual hires have different negotiation leverage. But this doesn't hold for a lockstep environment.

Info about pricing, compensation, etc. is per se competitively sensitive. Is that not obvious? It's still sensitive even without the specific consideration you mention (whether people at the same grade can get paid differently).

Again, basically every off-market firm, along with the vast majority of non-legal employers, treats this stuff as nonpublic information. It's intuitive to me that, once you have a general policy against divulging internal information, salary schedules would be included in such policy. Associates are generally happy to comply because there's literally no downside (versus the nonzero career risk involved in leaking stuff) to doing so.

It's so obvious that it doesn't need explaining, everyone does it therefore there's a reason. Got it.

[Anonymous User]

Employee compensation is proprietary, competitively-sensitive information for ... basically every employer in every industry? It's the Milbank-scale biglaw shops, with their unique oligopsonistic pricing, that are unusual. WLRK keeps this stuff close to the chest for the same reasons as any off-market firm, whether below-market, above-market or Jones Day weirdness

What are those reasons? Seems like it should be easy enough to spell them out, if they exist.

Usually companies don't like to share compensation bc they don't want Nancy to know that Jeff gets paid more for the same job. Individual hires have different negotiation leverage. But this doesn't hold for a lockstep environment.

Info about pricing, compensation, etc. is per se competitively sensitive. Is that not obvious? It's still sensitive even without the specific consideration you mention (whether people at the same grade can get paid differently).

Again, basically every off-market firm, along with the vast majority of non-legal employers, treats this stuff as nonpublic information. It's intuitive to me that, once you have a general policy against divulging internal information, salary schedules would be included in such policy. Associates are generally happy to comply because there's literally no downside (versus the nonzero career risk involved in leaking stuff) to doing so.

It's so obvious that it doesn't need explaining, everyone does it therefore there's a reason. Got it.

Competitive sensitivity is the reason, lol. If you don't know what that means then say so and we can make that foray.

Let's look at this from the other direction. Why, from a firm's point of view, would you want this info to be public? I don't see the upside. Market-paying firms need to prove they're still on Milbank scale for recruiting purposes, which de facto publicizes their pay schedule, but an above- (or below- or otherwise off-)market firm doesn't have that concern.

[Anonymous User]

Competitive sensitivity is the reason, lol.

Competition against whom, in this case?

Let's look at this from the other direction. Why, from a firm's point of view, would you want this info to be public? I don't see the upside. Market-paying firms need to prove they're still on Milbank scale for recruiting purposes, which de facto publicizes their pay schedule, but an above- (or below- or otherwise off-)market firm doesn't have that concern.

The bolded makes no sense. When people are deciding between a market-paying firm and non-market-paying firms, whether the latter are above or below (and by how much) is a hugely salient concern.

If I am working 50% more hours for 5% more pay, that is a bad deal.

[Anonymous User]

Competition against whom, in this case?

Peer firms, suppliers, clients. Insider knowledge about a company's cost structure is useful to all of those counterparties/competitors. It's not an existential trade secret, like the Coca-Cola formula or whatever, but it's still valuable information. Again, most of the economy works this way.

Let's look at this from the other direction. Why, from a firm's point of view, would you want this info to be public? I don't see the upside. Market-paying firms need to prove they're still on Milbank scale for recruiting purposes, which de facto publicizes their pay schedule, but an above- (or below- or otherwise off-)market firm doesn't have that concern.

The bolded makes no sense. When people are deciding between a market-paying firm and non-market-paying firms, whether the latter are above or below (and by how much) is a hugely salient concern.

Above-market firms don't seem to have any trouble recruiting, whether at OCI or on the clerk/lateral market. So, empirically, this is not a problem for them.

If I am working 50% more hours for 5% more pay, that is a bad deal.

whatever helps you cope

[Anonymous User]

Lol hiding how much you pay has always been dumb HR thing so they can lowball whenever they can.

[Anonymous User]

Employee compensation is proprietary, competitively-sensitive information for ... basically every employer in every industry? It's the Milbank-scale biglaw shops, with their unique oligopsonistic pricing, that are unusual. WLRK keeps this stuff close to the chest for the same reasons as any off-market firm, whether below-market, above-market or Jones Day weirdness

What are those reasons? Seems like it should be easy enough to spell them out, if they exist.

Usually companies don't like to share compensation bc they don't want Nancy to know that Jeff gets paid more for the same job. Individual hires have different negotiation leverage. But this doesn't hold for a lockstep environment.

Info about pricing, compensation, etc. is per se competitively sensitive. Is that not obvious? It's still sensitive even without the specific consideration you mention (whether people at the same grade can get paid differently).

Again, basically every off-market firm, along with the vast majority of non-legal employers, treats this stuff as nonpublic information. It's intuitive to me that, once you have a general policy against divulging internal information, salary schedules would be included in such policy. Associates are generally happy to comply because there's literally no downside (versus the nonzero career risk involved in leaking stuff) to doing so.

It's so obvious that it doesn't need explaining, everyone does it therefore there's a reason. Got it.

Competitive sensitivity is the reason, lol. If you don't know what that means then say so and we can make that foray.

Let's look at this from the other direction. Why, from a firm's point of view, would you want this info to be public? I don't see the upside. Market-paying firms need to prove they're still on Milbank scale for recruiting purposes, which de facto publicizes their pay schedule, but an above- (or below- or otherwise off-)market firm doesn't have that concern.

To my knowledge, the other above-market firms (Susman, Kellogg, Hueston, ....) all advertise their salaries and bonus amounts prominently. Wachtell's high pay isn't a secret, and all its other financial data (PPP, RPL, ....) are public knowledge. I don't see why it can't share its bonus multiplier. David Lat published it yearly when he worked at Above the Law.

Even if Wachtell won't share numbers, it would be helpful if associates could provide benchmarks. This would help applicants know what to expect, and could maybe put pressure on other firms to raise their bonuses.

[Anonymous User]

Even if Wachtell won't share numbers, it would be helpful if associates could provide benchmarks. This would help applicants know what to expect,

Check posts #1–5 in this thread.

and could maybe put pressure on other firms to raise their bonuses.

lol; other firms are already aware. Insofar as they bother competing, it's with signing bonuses and/or partnership promises to poach laterals

[Anonymous User]

To my knowledge, the other above-market firms (Susman, Kellogg, Hueston, ....) all advertise their salaries and bonus amounts prominently. Wachtell's high pay isn't a secret, and all its other financial data (PPP, RPL, ....) are public knowledge. I don't see why it can't share its bonus multiplier. David Lat published it yearly when he worked at Above the Law.

Even if Wachtell won't share numbers, it would be helpful if associates could provide benchmarks. This would help applicants know what to expect, and could maybe put pressure on other firms to raise their bonuses.

I'm not aware of Susman or Kellogg advertising their bonus multipliers at all.

[Anonymous User]

To my knowledge, the other above-market firms (Susman, Kellogg, Hueston, ....) all advertise their salaries and bonus amounts prominently. Wachtell's high pay isn't a secret, and all its other financial data (PPP, RPL, ....) are public knowledge. I don't see why it can't share its bonus multiplier. David Lat published it yearly when he worked at Above the Law.

Even if Wachtell won't share numbers, it would be helpful if associates could provide benchmarks. This would help applicants know what to expect, and could maybe put pressure on other firms to raise their bonuses.

I'm not aware of Susman or Kellogg advertising their bonus multipliers at all.

Have you looked at Susman's website? In addition to the slightly cringey self-promotionals and testimonials, they publicize bonuses right there every year.

[Anonymous User]

To my knowledge, the other above-market firms (Susman, Kellogg, Hueston, ....) all advertise their salaries and bonus amounts prominently. Wachtell's high pay isn't a secret, and all its other financial data (PPP, RPL, ....) are public knowledge. I don't see why it can't share its bonus multiplier. David Lat published it yearly when he worked at Above the Law.

Even if Wachtell won't share numbers, it would be helpful if associates could provide benchmarks. This would help applicants know what to expect, and could maybe put pressure on other firms to raise their bonuses.

I'm not aware of Susman or Kellogg advertising their bonus multipliers at all.

Have you looked at Susman's website? In addition to the slightly cringey self-promotionals and testimonials, they publicize bonuses right there every year.

And Kellogg publishes their (above market) salary scale and leaks its bonus memos to ATL.

[Anonymous User]

Are bonuses at WLRK equivalent for corporate associates and litigation associates? Or are they higher for corporate associates because that side of the firm drives more of the business?

[Anonymous User]

Are bonuses at WLRK equivalent for corporate associates and litigation associates? Or are they higher for corporate associates because that side of the firm drives more of the business?

Pure lockstep. Everyone gets paid the same.

[Anonymous User]

Wachtell considers laterals that apply directly on the website and I know they have hired at least one. The lateral was well credentialed - YLS, V5 biglaw, Fed. clerkship, etc.

There's a bunch of laterals, if you check the bios of their associates on LinkedIn. Definitely not all from TLS

Yeah, WLRK hires probably 2 laterals a year on average. 95% of them historically come from top law schools. If you didn't go to Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Chicago, NYU then your odds are basically 0. There are some people who get hired from other schools, but not a meaningful number.

Their website used to say they only go to law school OCIs at Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, Chicago, NYU, and Penn.

[Anonymous User]

Wachtell considers laterals that apply directly on the website and I know they have hired at least one. The lateral was well credentialed - YLS, V5 biglaw, Fed. clerkship, etc.

There's a bunch of laterals, if you check the bios of their associates on LinkedIn. Definitely not all from TLS

Yeah, WLRK hires probably 2 laterals a year on average. 95% of them historically come from top law schools. If you didn't go to Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Chicago, NYU then your odds are basically 0. There are some people who get hired from other schools, but not a meaningful number.

Their website used to say they only go to law school OCIs at Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, Chicago, NYU, and Penn.

Basically still does. https://www.wlrk.com/careers/summer-associates/

[Anonymous User]

I have a few datapoints: multiple people there told me they bill approx. 4000 hours a year. Even assuming a bonus that is 100% of base, that's worse per-hour pay than a typical big law firm. Do the math. Spare yourself.

[Anonymous User]

I have a few datapoints: multiple people there told me they bill approx. 4000 hours a year. Even assuming a bonus that is 100% of base, that's worse per-hour pay than a typical big law firm. Do the math. Spare yourself.

A single attorney reporting to bill 4000 hours in one year is raising a justifiable inference of fraud or malpractice. That comes down to 11 billable hours per day for all 365 days of the year. Sorry, that’s just not happening. If it somehow is, the work product is crap. I refuse to believe anyone at Wachtell has ever billed 4000 hours unless someone provides proof.

[Anonymous User]

I have a few datapoints: multiple people there told me they bill approx. 4000 hours a year. Even assuming a bonus that is 100% of base, that's worse per-hour pay than a typical big law firm. Do the math. Spare yourself.

A single attorney reporting to bill 4000 hours in one year is raising a justifiable inference of fraud or malpractice. That comes down to 11 billable hours per day for all 365 days of the year. Sorry, that’s just not happening. If it somehow is, the work product is crap. I refuse to believe anyone at Wachtell has ever billed 4000 hours unless someone provides proof.

Ya I've heard most people are around 3000.

[Anonymous User]

I have a few datapoints: multiple people there told me they bill approx. 4000 hours a year. Even assuming a bonus that is 100% of base, that's worse per-hour pay than a typical big law firm. Do the math. Spare yourself.

A single attorney reporting to bill 4000 hours in one year is raising a justifiable inference of fraud or malpractice. That comes down to 11 billable hours per day for all 365 days of the year. Sorry, that’s just not happening. If it somehow is, the work product is crap. I refuse to believe anyone at Wachtell has ever billed 4000 hours unless someone provides proof.

Ya I've heard most people are around 3000.

My roommate's in Wachtell lit and averages around 2200-2300. Gets a full bonus every year (i.e., a bonus that's the same as their salary) and is staffed with a desired partner. Obviously loves it. I'm not sure what my roommate's friends at Wachtell bill, but if we're at all basing it on the friends' social lives then I'd assume they're not billing all that much either.

[nealric]

I have a few datapoints: multiple people there told me they bill approx. 4000 hours a year. Even assuming a bonus that is 100% of base, that's worse per-hour pay than a typical big law firm. Do the math. Spare yourself.

A single attorney reporting to bill 4000 hours in one year is raising a justifiable inference of fraud or malpractice. That comes down to 11 billable hours per day for all 365 days of the year. Sorry, that’s just not happening. If it somehow is, the work product is crap. I refuse to believe anyone at Wachtell has ever billed 4000 hours unless someone provides proof.

Some of the super-high billers may be billing basically every minute they are in the office rather than just time on task. So if they were working on Matter X all day and were in the office from 9AM to 8PM they just record that as 11 hours on Matter X even though some of that time would have been breaks and chit chat.

Clients hiring Wachtell aren't cost sensitive (at least on the matters they've hired them for), so none of them are going to fight those numbers. I'm not sure it's still the case, but for a very long time Wachtell didn't do itemized bills. You just got a bill with a single line "for legal services rendered, $XX million." So there was no real way for a client to push back, and it also freed their lawyers from most of the administrative aspects of timekeeping.

[Sackboy]

I think Wachtell folks work a lot, but I don't think it's beyond typical biglaw a lot (i.e., 2200-2300, as mentioned above). They have a unique billing structure where they don't need to bill 3,000 a year to achieve their desired financial results. It's also unrealistic that folks could actually grind out 3,000 hours a year even just the 8 years up to making partner. As usual, this board heavily inflates hours. An average V10 associate probably works 1900-2100 hours, and the average Wachtell associate probably works 2200-2300. I get that we all want to think that they work so hard that they have absolutely zero life because it helps us cope with getting bonuses that are at most 25% of our base salary while they get 100% bonuses, but I just really doubt that is the case.

[nealric]

I think Wachtell folks work a lot, but I don't think it's beyond typical biglaw a lot (i.e., 2200-2300, as mentioned above). They have a unique billing structure where they don't need to bill 3,000 a year to achieve their desired financial results. It's also unrealistic that folks could actually grind out 3,000 hours a year even just the 8 years up to making partner. As usual, this board heavily inflates hours. An average V10 associate probably works 1900-2100 hours, and the average Wachtell associate probably works 2200-2300. I get that we all want to think that they work so hard that they have absolutely zero life because it helps us cope with getting bonuses that are at most 25% of our base salary while they get 100% bonuses, but I just really doubt that is the case.

That's some of it. A lot of people exaggerate their hours for various reasons. They want to be perceived as hard workers or may just feel exhausted by how hard they are working and feel like they are billing more than they are. They may extrapolate a super busy month or part of the year as claim that as their annual hours. I recall reading a report a few years ago that found that the vast majority of people who claim to be working 70 or 80 hours a week are actually working more like 55.