Most readers of this Substack likely are aware that the storied Wall Street law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP is likely to dissolve. Prompted by that news, one of my best former students sent along an interesting question:
Recent news reveals that the chairman of the firm (Barry Wolf) had a comp package equal to the highest earning partner in the firm (Mike Aiello, the head of the corporate department). Weil’s compensation system put significant weight on origination credits for clients they brought to the firm whereas the partners that actually performed the work or opened new matters under the client received relatively little.
Aiello, in his capacity as corporate department chair, built up Weil’s public M&A practice because his clients were primarily public M&A. In contrast, Aiello devoted almost no resources to, and reinforced certainly policies which severely hampered, its private equity and real estate practices to avoid potential conflicts of interest that would limit his earnings potential. For example, Wolf and Aiello repeatedly argued that they would not pay market comp to lateral partners (guaranteed minimum comp for the first few years), even though competitors were doing so, because that would weaken Weil’s culture and they wanted to build organically from within. However, other policies they instituted seem to contradict their purported desire to protect the culture and opportunities for young partners.
Are there arguments that Wolf or Aiello could be liable to the firm for their actions (if proved)?
My take on the facts is a little different.
Wolf negotiated a provision when he became leader that he would always earn the same as the firm’s top-paid partner, who in recent years was Aiello. The WSJ put each above $20 million a year. The peg was to the top earner, not to Aiello by name.
Bloomberg Law reports that both men saw lateral hiring through a loyalty lens and favored rehiring former Weil lawyers.
Former partners said Aiello blocked younger lawyers from leadership roles. According to ATL, he reportedly called a deputy’s plan to build a West Coast M&A practice disloyal.
Aiello reportedly saw public M&A as the premier practice, which held back private equity. But “almost no resources” overstates it. Weil said its US private equity group doubled to 160 lawyers under him, and Wolf called the criticism unfounded, while admitting growth was probably slower than it could have been.
The WSJ says some blame Aiello for making it harder to recruit in groups that might conflict with his work. The motive of protecting his earnings appears to be inference. Other reports describe a preference for staying with public M&A and perhaps getting smaller.
The report about lateral hiring versus organic growth appears to fit the earlier years better than the end. According to Bloomberg, Weil added a record 39 lateral partners in 2025, and Wolf conceded it had been too conservative. He also said the firm could now match top pay above $25 million.
As for origination credit, The American Lawyer reported in 2024 that Weil’s system lacked origination credit, even as the revised criteria put more weight on developing client relationships. Informal weighting is possible, since the revamp was also described as favoring business generators, but I found nothing on working partners receiving relatively little.
I found no public account of Wolf and Aiello refusing guarantees to laterals.
I found nothing about real estate being hampered.
A caveat: Much of the reporting comes from anonymous partners assigning blame after the collapse, so I don’t take it as gospel.
In assessing whether there are potential legal claims, I will therefore use the standard courts apply in deciding motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim; i.e.:
“In ruling on it, the court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Having done so, the court then asks whether the complaint’s allegations contain sufficient facts to state a legal claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Litigation, Overview - Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim