全球最负盛名的律师事务所之一迅速瓦解，令各大公司律所不禁思忖：这种事会不会发生在自己身上？其中许多确实应该感到害怕。
The swift unraveling of one of the world’s most prestigious law firms has rattled corporate law firms wondering if it could happen to them. Many of them should be scared.
威嘉律师事务所是重组领域的大师，曾为雷曼兄弟、通用汽车等濒临崩溃的大公司提供咨询，如今却在考虑清算自身。据英国《金融时报》报道，塞马福也证实了这一消息。它从“白鞋”精英律所的行列迅速跌至需要生命支持维持的境地，是过去十年大型律所业务剧变的结果：雇佣兵式律师的崛起。
Weil Gotshal, a restructuring guru that advised Lehman Brothers, General Motors, and other big companies on the edge of collapse, is now weighing its own liquidation, the Financial Times reported and Semafor can confirm. Its quick tumble from the white-shoe ranks to life support is a consequence of a dramatic shift in the business of Big Law over the past decade: the rise of the hired gun.
律师事务所从原本其乐融融的合伙制——律师按任职年限取酬，而不是按带来多少业务计酬——变成了凭业绩吃饭的竞技场，抛出令人瞠目的薪酬待遇挖角对手人才。这类合同通常保证两三年，把忠诚于律所、排队等拿高薪的“管家”变成了随时准备跳槽的自由人。
Law firms went from genial partnerships, where lawyers were paid based on time served rather than how much business they brought in, to eat-what-you-kill shops dangling eye-popping pay packages to poach rival talent. These contracts, typically guaranteed for two or three years, turned loyal firm stewards, waiting their turn for top dollar, into free agents ready to jump.
上月，威嘉并购业务主管迈克尔·艾洛带领一组合伙人跳槽至克拉瓦斯，重创了该所的计费收入，也让留守的人心神不宁。随后，六名私募股权合伙人迅速跟进，转投盛信。自9月中旬以来，已有近24名合伙人弃船，而威嘉的准管理合伙人似乎也在准备离开。
The departure of Weil’s M&A chief, Michael Aiello, along with a team of partners, to Cravath last month punched a hole in the firm’s billings and rattled those left behind. Six private-equity partners swiftly followed, to Simpson Thacher. Nearly two dozen partners have jumped ship since mid-September, and Weil’s would-be managing partner appears headed for the exit, too.
精灵一旦从瓶子里放出来，就再也塞不回去了。但律所可以改变向顶级合伙人发放高薪的方式和时机。递延薪酬方案在企业界行之有效，因为它能激励高管留下来兑现。与其保证三年，不如延长到五年或十年，这样“抢椅子”的游戏即便不会停止，至少也会慢下来，足以避免人才挤兑酿成下一个威嘉。
There’s no putting the genie back in the bottle. But law firms could change how and when they dole out top dollar to top partners. Deferred pay packages work in corporate settings because they incentivize executives to stick around to collect. Instead of three-year guarantees, make it five or ten, and the game of musical chairs would, if not stop, at least slow down enough to avoid talent runs that produce another Weil.
律师事务所或许可以借鉴它们在华尔街的同行——投资银行。投行曾经也是合伙制，但从20世纪80年代开始公司化。高盛和摩根士丹利经历了成长中的阵痛，但如今已成为巨头，通常能留住顶尖人才。（当明星人物离开时，他们去的是私募股权公司，而不是同城的竞争对手。）它们的做法或许具有借鉴意义。
Law firms might look to their Wall Street cousins, investment banks, which were once partnerships but started corporatizing in the 1980s. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley encountered their share of growing pains but are now behemoths that generally hold onto their top performers. (When stars leave, they do so for private equity, not a crosstown rival.) Their choices may be instructive.