I like Weil. I've worked with the firm, and I've generally thought highly of its culture. So when I say the lawyers there should be taking their options seriously, I'm saying that with real concern for the people who work there.

My worry is that Weil is getting caught in a partnership run. Each departure gives the next partner another reason to consider leaving. Eventually, the fear of what might happen can start producing the very outcome people are afraid of.

And I think the decision by its intended next leader to turn down the top job makes that problem much harder to contain.

The departures change the business that remains

Partners move. That's part of Big Law. What concerns me at Weil is the departure of people who were supposed to be helping lead the firm into its future.

Michael Aiello's planned move to Cravath was reported in September. That same month, Paul, Weiss announced Christopher Machera's arrival and named several more transactional lawyers who would follow. Those are serious competitors recruiting people with substantial practices and relationships.

When a practice leader leaves, the partners staying behind have to think about more than who gets the office. They have to ask what happens to referrals, client relationships and the work their groups do together.

Take a restructuring client that later needs help with an acquisition. A strong relationship in one group can become work for another group. That's part of the value of being at a large firm. If enough of the people who make those introductions leave, the platform becomes less useful to the lawyers who remain.

Then there's the client side. If you're a client reading these headlines, you'd be entitled to ask your partner what happens to the people handling your matters. A partner thinking about leaving has to consider those questions, too.

Now add an attractive offer from another firm. A partner can get a stronger compensation package, a leadership opportunity or simply a platform they feel more confident about. Every successive departure makes that offer easier to take seriously.

The growth gap needs some context

Bloomberg reported in June that Weil's revenue grew less than 3% in 2025, compared with more than 13% for the 50 largest firms, citing Wells Fargo. The same report quoted Barry Wolf saying that revenue and net income were up 19% for the first four months of 2026.

So there was a reported rebound early this year. The 2025 growth gap still helps explain the competitive pressure: firms growing faster have more room to make compelling offers to lawyers they want.

I wouldn't turn that comparison into a conclusion about Weil's current solvency. The issue I'm focused on is whether the firm can keep enough of its strongest people confident in their future there. Good lawyers have options, and those options don't disappear because their current firm has a respected name.

The succession news is what changed my assessment

Ramona Nee was supposed to take over as executive partner in January 2027. Reporting this week says she has declined that role. That leaves the succession plan unresolved; it doesn't establish that she has left Weil.

For me, this is the most troubling development. New leadership could have given partners something concrete to get behind. People could have believed in a new direction even while acknowledging that the firm had been through a difficult stretch.

When the person expected to lead that effort decides against taking the job, everyone else has another reason to question the plan. Competitors can see that, too. The moment people feel least confident about their future is a very good moment for another firm to call.

That's why I think the danger can accelerate. A partner considering an offer is also trying to guess what the other partners will do. Waiting becomes harder when you think the people around you may already be weighing their exits.

Why I keep coming back to a merger

At this point, a credible merger is the only route I can see to restoring confidence in Weil's future. It would need to give the lawyers staying there a convincing reason to believe in the combined firm.

The problem is finding a willing partner. Weil's talks with Willkie ended last week. I wasn't especially hopeful about that combination. From the perspective of a strong U.S. competitor, recruiting the particular partners and groups you want may be much easier than negotiating a merger of the entire firm.

A merger brings decisions about compensation, leadership and how the practices will fit together. A firm that can hire a team directly may prefer to settle those questions with that team and move on.

That's why I'd look seriously at Linklaters. Its recent U.S. expansion announcement describes a clear ambition to keep growing here. Weil's established New York presence and the strength of its lawyers could offer something valuable to a firm pursuing that goal.

That's my proposed strategic fit. I haven't seen reporting that Weil and Linklaters are in merger talks, and a combination would have plenty of difficult questions to resolve. But I think Weil needs to be realistic about where a deal could make sense for both sides, rather than assume a prestigious U.S. peer will want the whole firm.

What I'd tell the lawyers there

I think the people at Weil should be weighing their options now. You can care about your colleagues and like the place you've worked while still taking an honest look at whether it offers the future you want.

The firm needs a credible reason for its lawyers to stay. Until I see that confidence reset, I'd be looking carefully at opportunities where you can keep growing on a more stable platform.

Adapted from Bryson's October 27 video. Reporting and analysis reflect information checked on October 27, 2026.