Weil Gotshal Loses Senior Lawyers as Merger Talks Continue
Weil, Gotshal & Manges is losing two members of its management committee, Drew Tulumelo and Caroline Zalka, according to The Wall Street Journal, which reported the departures on October 23, 2026. The Journal described them as among the top lawyers leaving the firm, which is exploring a merger.
An earlier Journal report, dated October 22, said Weil is holding merger talks with another U.S. law firm while continuing to lose top lawyers. Taken together, the two reports describe a firm losing senior people while it works toward a possible combination.
The scale of the attrition is substantial. Law.com's American Lawyer reported on October 19 that, as of October 2026, Weil had lost about 28 partners in the year and hired 23. That is a net loss of roughly five partners. The gross figures matter more for anyone modeling client relationships. Partners often take their books of business, meaning the clients and fees they personally bring in, when they leave. Hires do not necessarily replace that origination capacity, which is the ability to win new work.
The merger timeline has shifted several times in public. In September, a Weil spokesperson said the firm was not engaged in merger discussions with any firm. Bloomberg Law reported on September 18 that Weil leaders had told top partners the firm was pursuing a merger and was in discussions to secure a tie-up. The same report said Weil and Willkie Farr & Gallagher had ended discussions over a possible merger. Above the Law reported on October 20 that Weil was reportedly negotiating a merger, roughly a month after the September denial. Those reports came from people familiar with the discussions.
The departures have been running for months. In August, the Journal reported that two groups of Weil lawyers, including star rainmakers, were in talks to leave for rival firms. On September 12, the Journal reported that Weil was set to lose its top dealmaker and five other partners to Cravath, Swaine & Moore. Above the Law later reported that corporate chair Michael Aiello had taken five M&A partners to Cravath.
Read together, the reporting describes a concentrated loss in the transactional practice, the deal work that a merger partner would most want to acquire.
The losses extend beyond deal work. In June, The Lawyer reported that Weil had lost a practice co-head to Sullivan & Cromwell, and that the firm had hired a leveraged finance partner from Sidley Austin in response. Hiring a finance partner from a rival suggests Weil was still recruiting laterally, meaning hiring partners from other firms, in a practice it had just lost a leader from.
That is a common response, but it does not offset the departure of a co-head.
Some of the pressure predates the current talks. Bloomberg Law, citing American Lawyer and Citi data, reported in June that Weil grew revenue at half the annualized rate of its competitors from 2008 to 2025.
That history matters at the negotiating table. A firm that has trailed peers on growth for nearly two decades has less leverage, because a counterparty can price in the risk that the firm's best producers keep moving.
The broader context here is a familiar tension in partnership-run law firms. Revenue sits largely with partners' client relationships, so a merger is effectively a bet on whether the combined partner group keeps those clients. Departures of deal partners during talks raise the question of what exactly is being combined, and on what terms.
In my view, the more useful question for anyone watching this is not whether a merger is possible but which practices and partners the firm would still have to offer at the table.
It is also worth keeping the status of the talks precise. These are merger talks, not an agreed transaction. Weil's September denial and its later reported negotiations are a reminder that early statements about a deal can change quickly. For readers tracking this, the signals to follow are whether the departures continue, whether a named counterparty is confirmed, and whether talks move from reported discussions to a signed agreement.
