Lateral to Wachtell? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Currently a junior at a V20, a recruiter reached out to me to potentially lateral to Wachtell- I am happy where I am, but very tempted because of comp. is life at Wachtell that much worse? (Again, I’m happy, but if it’s all the same, it’s an interesting proposition). Fwiw I billed about 23-2400 or so avg. Thank you all!

[Sackboy]

Do you want to do this long-term/are you one of those folks who loves to grind/is extremely dedicated to their career? If so, Wachtell is probably worth it. One, the comp is substantially better. Two, you can make equity in 8 years and you'd be set for life with nowhere "better" to lateral to. Three, you don't last and go to some other V10 with a fat signing bonus. If working an extra 100-200+ hours is going to break you, then all of the previous points don't matter and you should stay where you are. If you're trying to move in-house quickly, it's probably more of a mixed bag, but I could see arguments either way.

[Joachim2017]

Well, you would be working more than 2300-2400 hours at WLRK. It will also be an unusually steep curve getting up to speed with other associates at your seniority level as a lateral (maybe less so if you're in a niche area, which is where most WLRK lateral hires come in).

I wouldn't say life there is "worse". But it is definitely...different, even relative to a Cravath or S&C or other top Wall Street shop.

If you have equity built up at your current firm, it's a tougher call as well. But it sounds like you haven't talked to the WLRK partners you'd be working with yet? I don't think there's harm in taking that step and feeling it out.

[Anonymous User]

Currently a junior at a V20, a recruiter reached out to me to potentially lateral to Wachtell- I am happy where I am, but very tempted because of comp. is life at Wachtell that much worse? (Again, I’m happy, but if it’s all the same, it’s an interesting proposition). Fwiw I billed about 23-2400 or so avg. Thank you all!

Which group? Lateraling to M&A is a big deal (and will probably take you close to or above 3k, especially in this market). Other groups may be a little less of a shock.

[Anonymous User]

Hmmmm...the specific firm you are at now would be dispositive on this one. I wouldn’t leave a firm with $4M+ PPP in these circumstances. Would be a closer call at some of the other V20s.

[Anonymous User]

Hmmmm...the specific firm you are at now would be dispositive on this one. I wouldn’t leave a firm with $4M+ PPP in these circumstances. Would be a closer call at some of the other V20s.

Not OP, but why would PPP influence their decision?

[Anonymous User]

Hmmmm...the specific firm you are at now would be dispositive on this one. I wouldn’t leave a firm with $4M+ PPP in these circumstances. Would be a closer call at some of the other V20s.

Not OP, but why would PPP influence their decision?

Probably a factor of time working vs. expected all-in compensation. If you're at a $4m+ PPP shop, your chances of top market comp, even if low-ish (sub 2k) hours, are strong. If you're at certain V20s (and other firms lower down the chain), this is a dicier question and will depend on how consistently the firm matches market. Working at WLRK means incredible comp, but from everything I've heard, you need to be prepared to work those hours. Without knowing specifics, assuming that the %-bump in comp going to WLRK tracks to an equivalent %-bump in hours worked/billed, the tradeoff may/may not be worth it depending on your situation.

[Anonymous User]

Hmmmm...the specific firm you are at now would be dispositive on this one. I wouldn’t leave a firm with $4M+ PPP in these circumstances. Would be a closer call at some of the other V20s.

Not OP, but why would PPP influence their decision?

Probably a factor of time working vs. expected all-in compensation. If you're at a $4m+ PPP shop, your chances of top market comp, even if low-ish (sub 2k) hours, are strong. If you're at certain V20s (and other firms lower down the chain), this is a dicier question and will depend on how consistently the firm matches market. Working at WLRK means incredible comp, but from everything I've heard, you need to be prepared to work those hours. Without knowing specifics, assuming that the %-bump in comp going to WLRK tracks to an equivalent %-bump in hours worked/billed, the tradeoff may/may not be worth it depending on your situation.

Interesting. I had a different reaction - most V20 pay market and lower V20 have lower average hours than V5. Wouldn't OP's comp / hour increase more moving from Cravath to Wachtell than moving from White & Case to Wachtell?

[Anonymous User]

Anon above who mentioned the $4M PPP. Point I was thinking about is I would not give up the capital built at current firm for WLRK if I was at a firm where partnership was already top 5ish% in terms of lifetime comp. You will make more at WLRK as a partner but we are talking about the difference between like $50M and $80M and many high PPP firms also have a lucrative pension. It really is like a $100M proposition if you do it to mandatory retirement at a high PPP firm. So getting in is the key.

Assumption to all of this is that you want to make partner and make $$$. Making that assumption bc otherwise you wouldn’t be considering WLRK.

[2013]

Anon above who mentioned the $4M PPP. Point I was thinking about is I would not give up the capital built at current firm for WLRK if I was at a firm where partnership was already top 5ish% in terms of lifetime comp. You will make more at WLRK as a partner but we are talking about the difference between like $50M and $80M and many high PPP firms also have a lucrative pension. It really is like a $100M proposition if you do it to mandatory retirement at a high PPP firm. So getting in is the key.

Assumption to all of this is that you want to make partner and make $$$. Making that assumption bc otherwise you wouldn’t be considering WLRK.

Bigger assumption is that you can even make partner.

[Casper123]

Anon above who mentioned the $4M PPP. Point I was thinking about is I would not give up the capital built at current firm for WLRK if I was at a firm where partnership was already top 5ish% in terms of lifetime comp. You will make more at WLRK as a partner but we are talking about the difference between like $50M and $80M and many high PPP firms also have a lucrative pension. It really is like a $100M proposition if you do it to mandatory retirement at a high PPP firm. So getting in is the key.

Assumption to all of this is that you want to make partner and make $$$. Making that assumption bc otherwise you wouldn’t be considering WLRK.

OP is a junior so by capital built you mean more than one partner remembers his name? If OP was a well-liked senior with great reviews in a hot group your comment would be legit though.

[Anonymous User]

Bumping this thread. What does it actually take to lateral to Wachtell? Is it still academic credentials (e.g., stellar grades in 2L/3L) or more so experience on M&A deals (e.g., being a junior associate on a mega deal at your current firm)?

And I guess same questions extend to 3L hiring or post-clerkship hiring, to the extent Wachtell takes part in those recruitment channels. Does it just come down to grades and demonstrated interest in M&A if you haven’t started at a firm yet? Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

Would also be interested in hearing how recruiters are finding people like this for Wachtell. Currently a v5 first year on track for 2800 hours and I’d jump in a second to Wachtell to at least get paid more for all this work.

[Anonymous User]

Would also be interested in hearing how recruiters are finding people like this for Wachtell. Currently a v5 first year on track for 2800 hours and I’d jump in a second to Wachtell to at least get paid more for all this work.

AFAIK, the firm is no longer actively hiring laterals. The firm uses a couple exclusive recruiters who essentially scan biglaw profiles looking for the school/grade/experience/other criteria the firm asks them to look for. That same search firm does a screener. Then maybe you screen with a partner if you get through the search firm. Then a full callback (where you’d meet with more people than a normal OCI callback.).

Post-clerkship hiring is still a thing. Check nalp (anywhere from 0-4 clerks a year who didn’t summer at the firm.) lateral hiring for non-corporate/non-litigation positions is a thing year in and year out. Maybe 1-3 a year as best I can tell. Usually from the same three firms (cravath, dpw, s&c).

[Anonymous User]

Would also be interested in hearing how recruiters are finding people like this for Wachtell. Currently a v5 first year on track for 2800 hours and I’d jump in a second to Wachtell to at least get paid more for all this work.

AFAIK, the firm is no longer actively hiring laterals. The firm uses a couple exclusive recruiters who essentially scan biglaw profiles looking for the school/grade/experience/other criteria the firm asks them to look for. That same search firm does a screener. Then maybe you screen with a partner if you get through the search firm. Then a full callback (where you’d meet with more people than a normal OCI callback.).

Post-clerkship hiring is still a thing. Check nalp (anywhere from 0-4 clerks a year who didn’t summer at the firm.) lateral hiring for non-corporate/non-litigation positions is a thing year in and year out. Maybe 1-3 a year as best I can tell. Usually from the same three firms (cravath, dpw, s&c).

Cravath has sent a handful of ECB people and someone from lit to WLRK this year. No corporate laterals this year as far as I’m aware.

[jbagelboy]

Anon above who mentioned the $4M PPP. Point I was thinking about is I would not give up the capital built at current firm for WLRK if I was at a firm where partnership was already top 5ish% in terms of lifetime comp. You will make more at WLRK as a partner but we are talking about the difference between like $50M and $80M and many high PPP firms also have a lucrative pension. It really is like a $100M proposition if you do it to mandatory retirement at a high PPP firm. So getting in is the key.

Assumption to all of this is that you want to make partner and make $$$. Making that assumption bc otherwise you wouldn’t be considering WLRK.

Lol at a junior associate making decisions based on the prospect of equity partnership. The chances of that are extraordinarily small, and not worth factoring into this choice.

[Anonymous User]

Would also be interested in hearing how recruiters are finding people like this for Wachtell. Currently a v5 first year on track for 2800 hours and I’d jump in a second to Wachtell to at least get paid more for all this work.

AFAIK, the firm is no longer actively hiring laterals. The firm uses a couple exclusive recruiters who essentially scan biglaw profiles looking for the school/grade/experience/other criteria the firm asks them to look for. That same search firm does a screener. Then maybe you screen with a partner if you get through the search firm. Then a full callback (where you’d meet with more people than a normal OCI callback.).

Post-clerkship hiring is still a thing. Check nalp (anywhere from 0-4 clerks a year who didn’t summer at the firm.) lateral hiring for non-corporate/non-litigation positions is a thing year in and year out. Maybe 1-3 a year as best I can tell. Usually from the same three firms (cravath, dpw, s&c).

Cravath has sent a handful of ECB people and someone from lit to WLRK this year. No corporate laterals this year as far as I’m aware.

FWIW, most corporate laterals I know are from SullCrom m&a group.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland has also sent laterals to WLRK. It's insanely hard to get hired as a lateral at WLRK, maybe even harder than during OCI. That being said, because of the short partnership track, it is difficult to make partner as a lateral and laterals often move on after a few years.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Anon above who mentioned the $4M PPP. Point I was thinking about is I would not give up the capital built at current firm for WLRK if I was at a firm where partnership was already top 5ish% in terms of lifetime comp. You will make more at WLRK as a partner but we are talking about the difference between like $50M and $80M and many high PPP firms also have a lucrative pension. It really is like a $100M proposition if you do it to mandatory retirement at a high PPP firm. So getting in is the key.

Assumption to all of this is that you want to make partner and make $$$. Making that assumption bc otherwise you wouldn’t be considering WLRK.

Lol at a junior associate making decisions based on the prospect of equity partnership. The chances of that are extraordinarily small, and not worth factoring into this choice.

Wouldn't want Paul Hastings juniors to get stuck with $50M when they have $100M opportunities on the horizon!

I always tell 15-year-olds playing AAU ball to politely decline offers from the Timberwolves; the Lakers will offer significantly more marketing opportunities.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland has also sent laterals to WLRK. It's insanely hard to get hired as a lateral at WLRK, maybe even harder than during OCI. That being said, because of the short partnership track, it is difficult to make partner as a lateral and laterals often move on after a few years.

Definitely agree that it's incredibly hard and no one should count on it. But just wanted to observe that it does seem to be a different sort of "hard." The people who get WLRK through OCI tend to be the extremely polished, gung-ho double Ivies (or undergrad at Amherst/Williams/etc.), who figured out how law school works super quickly and aced 1L. Anecdotal, but I know a "high" Kent from CLS who got judged pretty hard after being asked whether he did a senior thesis in college and responding in the negative (he didn't get a callback). Senior theses just aren't a thing at Big State School where he went, while they are encouraged at elite schools - or even required at places like Princeton. I guess that's just one example of how OCI hiring is uber elitist/pedigree-focused.

Meanwhile, laterals don't seem to always fit the OCI mold. One of the SullCrom associates who lateraled this year went to UMichigan Law, where WLRK doesn't even actively recruit. Another went to Emory for undergrad. They're often not magna/Pomeroy/RBG scholars. That isn't to say it's easy for them, but it really comes down to showing the firm that you can run a deal by yourself (assuming we're talking about general corporate). In that way, it's a bit more "equitable." You still need to have gone to a good school and have good grades, of course, but, for one thing, you have 2L and 3L to get your grades up and the curve is much easier after 1L.

To the point about laterals and partnership prospects - it's not like everyone who joined right out of law school are making partner. Even at WLRK, partnership classes are tiny. And laterals have definitely made partner and done very well: Ed Lee made partner after lateraling from CSM (but he left for Kirkland rip) and Viktor Sapezhnikov made partner after lateraling from Simpson.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland has also sent laterals to WLRK. It's insanely hard to get hired as a lateral at WLRK, maybe even harder than during OCI. That being said, because of the short partnership track, it is difficult to make partner as a lateral and laterals often move on after a few years.

I think you meant to say that WLRK has sent laterals to Kirkland. Don’t think it works the other way around. If I’m wrong, tell me who.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland has also sent laterals to WLRK. It's insanely hard to get hired as a lateral at WLRK, maybe even harder than during OCI. That being said, because of the short partnership track, it is difficult to make partner as a lateral and laterals often move on after a few years.

I think you meant to say that WLRK has sent laterals to Kirkland. Don’t think it works the other way around. If I’m wrong, tell me who.

Didn’t want to chime in earlier in case I missed someone, but I can’t think of a single Kirkland-to-WLRK hire. It’s not something the firm would do. Maybe I’m missing one. But I definitely wouldn’t use the plural form of lateral. At least not in the last 5 years.

No need to out the person’s name on some law forum however if I (and I guess the poster I’m quoting) am missing someone.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland has also sent laterals to WLRK. It's insanely hard to get hired as a lateral at WLRK, maybe even harder than during OCI. That being said, because of the short partnership track, it is difficult to make partner as a lateral and laterals often move on after a few years.

I think you meant to say that WLRK has sent laterals to Kirkland. Don’t think it works the other way around. If I’m wrong, tell me who.

Didn’t want to chime in earlier in case I missed someone, but I can’t think of a single Kirkland-to-WLRK hire. It’s not something the firm would do. Maybe I’m missing one. But I definitely wouldn’t use the plural form of lateral. At least not in the last 5 years.

No need to out the person’s name on some law forum however if I (and I guess the poster I’m quoting) am missing someone.

Def know of a black Yale Law grad who lateraled from KE in DC to WLRK in lit a few years ago. So it is definitely something the firm would do, but that's the only person I can think of. I think he's an AUSA now.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland has also sent laterals to WLRK. It's insanely hard to get hired as a lateral at WLRK, maybe even harder than during OCI. That being said, because of the short partnership track, it is difficult to make partner as a lateral and laterals often move on after a few years.

I think you meant to say that WLRK has sent laterals to Kirkland. Don’t think it works the other way around. If I’m wrong, tell me who.

Didn’t want to chime in earlier in case I missed someone, but I can’t think of a single Kirkland-to-WLRK hire. It’s not something the firm would do. Maybe I’m missing one. But I definitely wouldn’t use the plural form of lateral. At least not in the last 5 years.

No need to out the person’s name on some law forum however if I (and I guess the poster I’m quoting) am missing someone.

Def know of a black Yale Law grad who lateraled from KE in DC to WLRK in lit a few years ago. So it is definitely something the firm would do, but that's the only person I can think of. I think he's an AUSA now.

But this is like not at all common tho. Search Sullivan & Cromwell (or Cravath) + Wachtell, you will see a few people who lateraled to Wachtell. This is not the case fo Kirkland.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland has also sent laterals to WLRK. It's insanely hard to get hired as a lateral at WLRK, maybe even harder than during OCI. That being said, because of the short partnership track, it is difficult to make partner as a lateral and laterals often move on after a few years.

I think you meant to say that WLRK has sent laterals to Kirkland. Don’t think it works the other way around. If I’m wrong, tell me who.

Didn’t want to chime in earlier in case I missed someone, but I can’t think of a single Kirkland-to-WLRK hire. It’s not something the firm would do. Maybe I’m missing one. But I definitely wouldn’t use the plural form of lateral. At least not in the last 5 years.

No need to out the person’s name on some law forum however if I (and I guess the poster I’m quoting) am missing someone.

Def know of a black Yale Law grad who lateraled from KE in DC to WLRK in lit a few years ago. So it is definitely something the firm would do, but that's the only person I can think of. I think he's an AUSA now.

But this is like not at all common tho. Search Sullivan & Cromwell (or Cravath) + Wachtell, you will see a few people who lateraled to Wachtell. This is not the case fo Kirkland.

LinkedIn suggests the hire was from 2013. So not something common (although no one in this thread has suggested as much.) or in the last few years… just very surprised by the use of plural from the original person raising K&E.