On Wall Street, Lawyers Make More Than Bankers Now
Superstar attorneys can rake in more than $15 million a year, while banker pay has hardly budged
4 min
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
A record-breaking $11 million sale at The Centennial Collection has set a new benchmark for luxury apartment living in Bondi Junction.
As interest rates, inflation and market sentiment fluctuate, investors are being urged to focus on data, not panic.
The federal budget has rattled property investors. But the biggest mistake isn’t the tax changes, it’s the conclusion many are drawing from them.
2 min
The recent budget has forced a reckoning for property investors.
Negative gearing now restricted to new residential builds, the CGT discount gone and on paper, the numbers look different.
And many investors are responding by pivoting toward yield, prioritising cash flow over capital growth in a way that property strategists say misses the point entirely.
“The debate has shifted to yield versus growth as if they are opposing forces,” says Abdullah Nouh, founder of Melbourne-based buyers’ agency Mecca Property Group. “But that framing is itself the mistake.”
Nouh, who works with high-net-worth families and investors on long-term acquisition strategy, argues that capital growth remains the primary driver of genuine wealth creation and that the post-budget environment has made quality assets more important, not less.
The numbers make his case plainly. An additional $500 per week in rental income is welcome. A prestige asset appreciating by $1 million over a market cycle is transformative.
These are not equivalent outcomes, and portfolios built around yield at the expense of location and land value tend to generate income while wealth stands largely still.
The more nuanced shift Nouh is seeing among sophisticated investors is a move toward assets where both outcomes can be engineered simultaneously – established homes on substantial land in quality locations, where the existing dwelling can be repositioned, rental returns improved, and the underlying land value compounds independent of what sits on it.
For investors with existing equity, commercial property is also entering the conversation in a more serious way.
Prestige industrial assets, medical centres and long-leased essential retail offer income profiles that residential property in most capital city markets cannot currently match: longer lease terms, tenants covering outgoings, and greater predictability than the residential tenancy cycle.
“The investors who build lasting wealth are rarely the ones who chased yield or growth exclusively,” says Nouh.
“They are the ones who built a strategy they could sustain – one that generated enough income to hold quality assets through multiple cycles while those assets compounded in value.”
The budget has changed the settings. It has not changed the fundamentals.
Paine Schwartz joins BERO as a new investor as the year-old company seeks to triple sales.
From the shacks of yesterday to the sculptural sanctuaries of today, Australia’s coastal architecture has matured into a global benchmark for design.
