On Wall Street, Lawyers Make More Than Bankers Now

Over the past few years, as the Manhattan real-estate broker Lisa Lippman took her well-heeled clients through $7 million-plus apartments with Central Park views and amenities including squash courts and lap pools, she noticed a change: It was no longer bankers making a lot of the offers. It was lawyers.

“It used to be you’d say someone is an investment banker, and that was a big deal. Now it’s like meh,” Lippman, a former lawyer, said. “If I had to pick my favourite buyers, it would be big-time lawyers.”

While bankers used to make multiples of what lawyers did, the lawyers have been zooming ahead, thanks to stagnant banker pay for all but the very top performers and changing dynamics at law firms. The trend took hold well before the recent slowdown in deal making dented banker pay.

The Wall Street Journal spoke to more than 30 compensation experts, bankers and lawyers and reviewed pay data over more than 15 years.

Managing directors who aren’t in high-ranking leadership roles at banks make an average of between $1 million and $2 million most years, including bonuses often paid largely in stock, more or less unchanged from where it was two decades ago.

Equity partners at top law firms, meanwhile, can make around $3 million or more a year—more than triple what they were pulling in two decades ago. An elite group of partners who bring in exceptional amounts of business are earning north of $15 million at a handful of firms including Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; Kirkland & Ellis; and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

“Things have changed,” said Mark Rosen, a longtime legal recruiter. “Lawyer compensation has grown unbelievably.”

In 2000, when Rob Kindler, an established deals lawyer, left the white-shoe law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore to get into banking, a Journal story said he could make around five times as much money at an investment bank.

Earlier this month Kindler, 69, left Morgan Stanley to join the law firm Paul Weiss. There, he stands to make upward of $10 million a year, depending on performance, likely more than he was earning at Morgan Stanley.

Lawyers and bankers are the linchpins of Wall Street, working in tandem to facilitate all manner of maneuvers for the world’s biggest companies. Specialists in both professions help clients raise money, do deals and ward off unwanted suitors or investors.

Kirkland & Ellis has hired partners from other law firms to bolster its business. PHOTO: MICHAEL BUCHER/THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The reasons for the shifting fortunes between the two groups are varied. No longer relegated to simply marking up contracts, today’s corporate lawyers are quasibankers, serving as sounding boards for corporate executives as they clash with regulators or wrestle with thorny issues such as succession planning. They have also received an outsize amount of work from the rise of private equity, a client base that was nowhere near as active 20 years ago.

At the same time, the law-firm industry’s compensation structure has been upended, as all but a few of the largest firms abandon the so-called lockstep pay structure in which partner payouts are solely based on seniority, rather than productivity. That has created a new era of bidding wars for talent, akin to sports teams stretching their wallets to sign star players.

Kirkland, in particular, put competition in overdrive over the past 15 years as it poached partners from other firms to jump-start its business. Kirkland has offered potential recruits deals that could be worth $20 million or more annually for the first few years, significantly more than most could make elsewhere.

Most big law firms raise their prices by around 4% each year, usually more than topping inflation, according to Owen Burman, a Wells Fargo senior consultant who tracks the industry. Banker deal fees, while large, are relatively static. Top lawyers currently charge more than $2,000 an hour for their time.

Some high performers at top firms earn more than $15 million, and an elite few get well over $20 million. Paul Weiss’s Scott Barshay and Kirkland’s James Sprayregen are often singled out as among the highest-paid lawyers on Wall Street. (JPMorgan Chase Chief Executive Jamie Dimon, by comparison, made $34.5 million last year, with most of it paid in company stock.)

While standout law firm partners might bring in around $20 million in annual revenue, superstars can bring in $100 million or more, said Rosen, the legal recruiter.

The riches can come at a price. Advising companies at their most critical moments means the work is 24/7. Rosen said it isn’t uncommon for his clients to work 18-hour days, on weekends. One lawyer recalled being on a client call while posing for family photos at his son’s bar mitzvah.

Bankers’ work can be similarly nonstop, but compensation for most hasn’t continued the trajectory it was on before the 2008 financial crisis, according to survey data from the recruiting firm Bay Street Advisors.

Bay Street’s analysis shows that the average managing director at a top-20 investment bank not leading a group made $1.9 million a year over the past three years (which included a standout 2021), compared with $1.9 million in 2007. And that is without accounting for inflation. Lower-level bankers are making even less on average than they were precrisis.

Pressure from regulators, increasing expenses and a move toward selling big banks’ brand names rather than individuals have all hurt pay. While it was typical before the financial crisis for so-called bulge-bracket banks such as Goldman Sachs Group and Morgan Stanley to spend well over 40% of revenue on pay, that figure is now much lower.

“Every time the banks get wind in their sails, we hit a hiccup and get set back a few years again,” said Kevin Mahoney, a senior partner at Bay Street who runs its investment-banking practice.

It used to be common for bankers to retire in their 50s, having amassed sizable fortunes. That is less often seen now.

But don’t start shedding tears for them just yet. Their pay still dwarfs the median U.S. household income of around $70,000 a year. And star bankers—especially at independent advisory firms such as Centerview Partners—can still haul in a healthy eight-figure payday or more in a good year.

Dana Cimilluca and Alexander Saeedy contributed to this article.

Elon Musk’s SpaceX is set to make its stock-market debut Friday in the largest IPO ever—and perhaps the most closely watched. The company sold an outsized portion of the offering to individuals. Its performance on Friday will be a crucial gauge of investor appetite for mega-offerings from OpenAI and Anthropic expected later this year.

The rocket maker, which derives most of its revenue from its satellite internet unit and has a nascent artificial-intelligence business, will trade under the ticker “SPCX.” It sold 555.6 million shares at $135 each, raising about $75 billion in a deal that valued the company at roughly $1.77 trillion.

When will shares open for trading?

SpaceX executives are set to ring the Nasdaq’s opening bell in New York, but shares in buzzy initial public offerings don’t tend to start trading until later in the day.

Bankers leading an IPO typically want to match buyers and sellers for about 10% of the shares sold before opening trading to lessen volatility. For SpaceX, that would be about 55 million shares, or roughly $7.5 billion worth.

Because pre-IPO investors are restricted from selling shares for a while, it can take time to find willing sellers among those who bought shares in a high-demand IPO.

Shares of Alibaba , the largest U.S. IPO until SpaceX, opened for trading a little before noon in its 2014 offering. Last year, one of the highest-profile offerings was that of software maker Figma , whose shares started trading just before 2 p.m.

It is possible that SpaceX’s bankers will decide to start trading without matching the typical portion of orders to ensure the shares have several hours of trading on their first day, people familiar with the matter say.

How volatile will the stock be?

Bankers and traders expect SpaceX’s share price could be volatile in initial trading, thanks in part to the large portion of its shares expected to be held by individual investors. Some who anticipate individuals will rush into the shares worry they could just as easily get spooked and rush out.

Any sharp movement in stock price could trigger so-called circuit breakers that could pause trading. For most newly listed companies, a 10% swing in either direction prompts a five-minute pause. Companies that had their shares halted include Figma and Cerebras Systems , the chip company whose shares soared in its May debut.

These forced timeouts applied to single stocks came after the so-called flash crash in 2010, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 700 points in eight minutes before recouping much of the loss.

What is all the talk about the ‘green-shoe’ option?

If the stock starts trading erratically, bankers have a secret weapon to attempt to calm things down.

Underwriters typically sell more shares to investors than an IPO’s total offer size, colloquially called the green shoe. In SpaceX’s case, they sold about 15% more shares than the stated offering size.

Because this means they technically allocated more than the offering amount, the so-called stabilisation agent, in this case, Morgan Stanley , needs to buy back the excess number of shares to deliver them. If the stock starts to fall, the bank will buy the shares in the open market, which helps buoy the stock price. If the stock isn’t faltering, the stabilisation agent can buy the additional shares they need to deliver to investors directly from the company.

The term “green shoe” comes from the first company to employ a version of this method years ago, a shoemaker that was a predecessor to Stride Rite. When Meta Platforms , then known as Facebook, went public in 2012, its shares started dropping and its bankers stepped in to buy more shares.

How will Elon Musk’s take-it-or-leave-it pricing fare?

Like all things Musk, SpaceX’s IPO bucked the norms. Instead of approaching prospective investors with a possible price range for shares ahead of the IPO and incorporating their feedback, the company set an exact share price from the beginning: $135.

The idea was to limit drama for what is already the biggest IPO of all time. It did, however, remove what many see as an important step along the way: price discovery. The success of this approach will partly be judged by how SpaceX’s shares trade Friday. If the stock surges, critics will say SpaceX left money on the table by not pricing shares higher. If the stock falls or trades flat, there will likely be critiques that SpaceX and its advisers overestimated demand.

Will the machinery hold up—and what will be the wider market impact?

The sheer size of SpaceX’s IPO will test the trading infrastructure at Nasdaq and could have ripple effects in the broader market.

Nasdaq has practiced with mock openings to make sure its trading platform is prepared. When Facebook went public, some investors who tried to change or cancel orders ahead of trading didn’t get confirmations because of a technology malfunction. The confusion contributed to Facebook shares dropping on the first day of trading. They didn’t return back above their IPO price for more than a year.

Meanwhile, some market watchers expect added activity Friday in stocks that individual investors might sell to buy SpaceX shares, such as those of technology companies and Musk’s electric-car maker Tesla . Such sales already appeared to be under way earlier in the week, when individual investors dumped single-stock holdings on a net basis for two days in a row, according to Vanda Research. (To be sure, those sales came on days that were poor showings for tech stocks broadly.)

It will take several days for SpaceX shares to show up in any major index funds , so the offering’s wider impact on the market could play out over the next several weeks or longer.