UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

(Rule 14a-101)

Information Required in Proxy Statement

Schedule 14A Information

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Filed by the Registrant  ☒

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant  ☐

Check the appropriate box:

Lazard Ltd

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

		Notice of Annual Meeting and Proxy Statement

2018 Annual General Meeting of Shareholders

Items of Business

Only shareholders of record at the close of business on March 2, 2018 may vote in person or by proxy at the meeting or any adjournment or postponement thereof.

Proxy Statement and Other Materials

The Proxy Statement is being mailed to shareholders on or about March 19, 2018, together with a copy of the Company’s 2017 Annual Report, which includes financial statements for the period ended December 31, 2017 and the related independent auditor’s reports. Those financial statements will be presented at the meeting.

Your vote is important. Please exercise your shareholder right to vote.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

OUR CEO’S 2017 COMPENSATION

 

Fixed Compensation		Base Salary		$900K		7% of Total Compensation
Performance-based Compensation		Annual Cash Incentive		$4.1M		33% of Total Compensation
		Performance-based Restricted Stock Units		$7.5M		60% of Total Compensation

 

 

Fixed vs. Performance-based Compensation		Cash vs. Long-Term Incentive Compensation
Ratio Remained In Line with 2016 Mix		Ratio Remained In Line with 2016 Mix

Total 2017 compensation awarded to our CEO increased 14% compared to 2016, in recognition of and in accordance with:

 

•

our strong financial performance in 2017, as reflected in the 2017 financial highlights described above;

 

•

the 13% increase in our operating revenue in 2017 compared to 2016;

 

•

the 21% increase in our awarded operating income in 2017 compared to 2016;

 

•

the continued achievement of our financial goals described in this Proxy Statement; and

 

•

our CEO’s individual contributions and achievements in support of our Financial Advisory business.

8

GENERAL INFORMATION

Who Can Vote

Holders of our Class A common stock, as recorded in our share register at the close of business on March 2, 2018, the record date, may vote at the annual general meeting and any adjournment or postponement thereof. As of March 2, 2018, there were 129,766,091 shares of Class A common stock outstanding (including 7,859,988 shares held by our subsidiaries, which shares are not counted for purposes of the voting calculations set forth in this Proxy Statement).

Voting Your Proxy

You may vote in person at the meeting or by proxy. We recommend you vote by proxy even if you plan to attend the meeting. You can always change your vote at the meeting. Most shareholders have a choice of proxy voting by using a toll-free telephone number, voting through the Internet or, if they received their proxy materials by regular mail, completing the proxy card and mailing it in the postage-paid envelope provided. If you received your materials by regular mail, please refer to your proxy card or the information forwarded by your bank, broker or other holder of record to see which options are available to you. Executors, administrators, trustees, guardians, attorneys and other representatives voting on behalf of a shareholder should indicate the capacity in which they are signing, and corporations should vote by an authorized officer whose title should be indicated.

How Proxies Work

Lazard’s Board of Directors is asking for your proxy. Giving us your proxy means you authorize us to vote your shares at the meeting, or at any adjournment or postponement thereof, in the manner you direct. You may vote for all, some or none of our director nominees. You may also vote for or against the other proposals or abstain from voting. If you sign and return a proxy card or otherwise vote by telephone or the Internet but do not specify how to vote, we will vote your shares: FOR each of our director nominees; FOR a non-binding advisory vote regarding executive compensation as described in this Proxy Statement; FOR the 2018 Incentive Compensation Plan; and FOR ratification of the appointment of Deloitte & Touche LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2018. The enclosed proxy also confers discretionary authority with respect to amendments or variations to the matters identified in the Notice of 2018 Annual General Meeting and with respect to other matters that may be properly brought before the meeting or any adjournment or postponement thereof.

As of the date of this Proxy Statement, we do not know of any other business that will be presented at the meeting. If other business shall properly come before the meeting, the persons named in the proxy will vote according to their best judgment.

9

Revoking Your Proxy

You may revoke your proxy before it is voted by submitting a new proxy with a later date, by voting in person at the meeting or by sending written notification addressed to:

Lazard Ltd

30 Rockefeller Plaza

New York, New York 10112

Attn: Scott D. Hoffman

Secretary

Mere attendance at the meeting will not revoke a proxy that was previously submitted to us.

Quorum and Conduct of Meeting

In order to carry on the business of the meeting, we must have a quorum. This means that at least two shareholders must be present at the meeting, either in person or by proxy, and those shareholders must generally hold shares representing more than 50% of the votes that may be cast by all shareholders having the right to attend and vote at the meeting. The chairman of the meeting will have broad authority to conduct the meeting so that the business of the meeting is carried out in an orderly and timely manner. In doing so, the chairman will have broad discretion to establish reasonable rules for discussion, comments and questions during the meeting. The chairman also is entitled to rely upon applicable law regarding disruptions or disorderly conduct to ensure that the meeting is conducted in a manner that is fair to all participants.

Attendance at the Annual General Meeting

Only shareholders, their proxy holders and our guests may attend the meeting. Space is limited and admission to the meeting will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Verification of ownership will be requested at the admissions desk. If you are a holder of record and plan to attend the meeting, please indicate this when you vote. When you arrive at the meeting, you will be asked to present photo identification, such as a driver’s license. If your shares are held in the name of your broker, bank or other nominee, you must bring to the meeting an account statement or letter from the nominee indicating that you were the beneficial owner of the shares on March 2, 2018, the record date for voting. If you want to vote your Class A common stock held in street name in person, you must obtain a written proxy in your name from the broker, bank or other nominee that holds your shares. If you wish to obtain directions to attend the meeting in person, you may send an e-mail to: investorrelations@lazard.com or call (212) 632-6886.

10

INFORMATION ABOUT OUR ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

AND THE SOLICITATION OF PROXIES

Votes Needed

We have adopted a majority vote policy described in additional detail under “Election of Directors—Majority Vote Policy” below, which generally requires that a director receive a majority of the votes cast in order to be elected in an “uncontested election of directors” (as defined below), though our Bye-laws state that directors are elected by a plurality of the votes cast. See “Election of Directors—Majority Vote Policy” below for additional information regarding our majority vote policy. Votes withheld from any director nominee will not be counted in such nominee’s favor. With respect to all other matters to be acted on at the meeting, the affirmative vote of a majority of the combined voting power of all of the shares of our Class A common stock present or represented and entitled to vote at the meeting is required.

As permitted by Bermuda law, we treat abstentions as present and entitled to vote for purposes of determining a quorum, and, in accordance with our Bye-laws, they would be counted in the calculation for determining whether any proposal received a majority vote at the meeting. With regard to “broker non-votes”, we also treat such shares as present for purposes of determining a quorum, but they would not be counted in the calculation for determining whether the relevant proposal received a majority vote at the meeting. A “broker non-vote” is a proxy submitted by a broker or other nominee in which the broker or other nominee does not vote on behalf of a client on a particular matter for lack of instruction when such instruction is required by the rules of the New York Stock Exchange, or the NYSE. Brokers may no longer use discretionary authority to vote “broker non-votes” on matters that are not considered “routine”. The vote in connection with the ratification of the appointment of our independent registered public accounting firm (Item 4) is considered “routine”. The votes in connection with all other matters to be acted on at the meeting are not considered “routine”. If you do not submit voting instructions to your broker or other nominee, we expect that your shares will be treated as broker non-votes.

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Annual General Meeting of Shareholders to Be Held on April 24, 2018

This Proxy Statement and the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, or the 2017 Annual Report, can be viewed on our website at www.lazard.com/investorrelations. Most shareholders may elect to view future proxy statements and annual reports over the Internet instead of receiving paper copies in the mail. If you are a shareholder of record, you may choose this option by following the instructions provided when you vote over the Internet. If you hold your Class A common stock through a bank, broker or other holder of record, please refer to the information provided by that entity for instructions on how to elect to view our future proxy statements and annual reports over the Internet.

11

Cost of this Proxy Solicitation

We pay the expenses of preparing the proxy materials and soliciting this proxy. We have engaged MacKenzie Partners, Inc. to assist in the solicitation and distribution of proxy materials and we expect to pay MacKenzie Partners, Inc. a fee of approximately $15,000, plus reasonable out-of-pocket costs and expenses, for its services. We also reimburse brokers and other nominees for their expenses in sending these materials to you and obtaining your voting instructions. In addition to this mailing, proxies may be solicited personally, electronically or by telephone by our directors, officers, other employees or our agents. If any of our directors, officers and other employees assist in soliciting proxies, they will not receive additional compensation for those services.

Multiple Shareholders Sharing Same Address

If you and other residents at your mailing address with the same last name own shares of Class A common stock through a bank or broker, your bank or broker may have sent you a notice that your household will receive only one annual report and proxy statement for each company in which the members of your household hold stock through that bank or broker. This practice of sending only one copy of proxy materials to holders residing at a single address is known as “householding”, and was authorized by the SEC to allow multiple investors residing at the same address the convenience of receiving a single copy of annual reports, proxy statements and other disclosure documents if they consent to do so. If you did not respond that you did not want to participate in householding, you were deemed to have consented to the process. If you did not receive a householding notice from your bank or broker, you can request householding by contacting that entity. You also may revoke your consent to householding at any time by contacting your bank or broker.

If you wish to receive a separate paper copy of this Proxy Statement or the 2017 Annual Report, you may call (212) 632-6886, visit our website at www.lazard.com/investorrelations, send an e-mail to: investorrelations@lazard.com or write to:

Lazard Ltd

30 Rockefeller Plaza

New York, New York 10112

Attn: Investor Relations

12

ITEM 1

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Our Board of Directors is divided into three classes. Members of each class serve for a three-year term. Shareholders elect one class of directors at each annual general meeting. At this annual general meeting, shareholders will vote on the election of the four nominees described below for a term ending at the 2021 annual general meeting.

The following section contains information provided by the nominees and continuing directors about their principal occupation, business experience and other matters. Each nominee is a current director of the Company and has indicated to us that he or she will serve if elected. We do not anticipate that any nominee will be unable or unwilling to stand for election, but if that happens, your proxy may be voted for another person nominated by the Board.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ RECOMMENDATION

The Board of Directors recommends a vote FOR the election of each nominee listed below.

Unless otherwise directed in the proxy, the persons named in the proxy will vote FOR each nominee listed below.

NOMINEES FOR ELECTION AS DIRECTORS FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM EXPIRING IN 2021

13

14

15

DIRECTORS CONTINUING IN OFFICE (TERM EXPIRING IN 2019)

16

17

DIRECTORS CONTINUING IN OFFICE (TERM EXPIRING IN 2020)

18

NEW DIRECTOR EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 2018 (TERM EXPIRING IN 2020)

19

MAJORITY VOTE POLICY

Our Board has adopted a majority vote policy in connection with the election of directors.

In an uncontested election of directors, any nominee who receives a greater number of votes “withheld” from his or her election than votes “for” his or her election will, within five days following the certification of the shareholder vote, tender his or her written resignation to the Chairman of the Board for consideration by the Nominating & Governance Committee. As used herein, an “uncontested election of directors” is an election in which the number of nominees is not greater than the number of Board seats open for election.

The Nominating & Governance Committee will consider such tendered resignation and, promptly following the date of the shareholders’ meeting at which the election occurred, will make a recommendation to the Board concerning the acceptance or rejection of such resignation. In determining its recommendation to the Board, the Nominating & Governance Committee will consider all factors deemed relevant by the members of the Nominating & Governance Committee including, without limitation, the stated reason or reasons why shareholders who cast “withhold” votes for the director did so, the qualifications of the director (including, for example, the impact the director’s resignation would have on the Company’s compliance with the requirements of the SEC, the NYSE and Bermuda law), and whether the director’s resignation from the Board would be in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders.

The Nominating & Governance Committee also will consider a range of possible alternatives concerning the director’s tendered resignation as members of the Nominating & Governance Committee deem appropriate including, without limitation, acceptance of the resignation, rejection of the resignation, or rejection of the resignation coupled with a commitment to seek to address and cure the underlying reasons reasonably believed by the Nominating & Governance Committee to have substantially resulted in the “withheld” votes.

The Board will take formal action on the Nominating & Governance Committee’s recommendation no later than 90 days following the date of the shareholders’ meeting at which the election occurred. In considering the Nominating & Governance Committee’s recommendation, the Board will consider the information, factors and alternatives considered by the Nominating & Governance Committee and such additional information, factors and alternatives as the Board deems relevant.

Following the Board’s decision on the Nominating & Governance Committee’s recommendation, the Company will promptly disclose, in a Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Board’s decision, together with an explanation of the process by which the decision was made. If the Board has not accepted the tendered resignation, it will also disclose the reason or reasons for doing so.

No director who, in accordance with this policy, is required to tender his or her resignation, shall participate in the Nominating & Governance Committee’s deliberations or recommendation, or in the Board’s deliberations or determination, with respect to accepting or rejecting his or her resignation as a director.

20

INFORMATION REGARDING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Lazard is governed by a Board of Directors and various committees of the Board that meet throughout the year. Our Board has established four standing committees: the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee, the Nominating & Governance Committee and the Workplace and Culture Committee. Each of the standing committees has adopted and operates under a written charter, all of which are available on our website at www.lazard.com/investorrelations/. Other corporate governance documents also are available on our website, including our Corporate Governance Guidelines and our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. A copy of each of these documents is available to any shareholder upon request.

LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Kenneth M. Jacobs has served as Chairman of the Board and CEO of the Company since November 2009. The Board carefully considered a variety of governance arrangements following the sudden death of the Company’s former Chairman and CEO in October 2009, including separating the roles of Chairman and CEO. The Board appointed Mr. Jacobs as the Company’s Chairman and CEO following this measured and comprehensive review. At the same time, the Board also recognized the need for strong independent perspectives to balance the combined Chairman and CEO positions and to avoid any potential conflicts. The Board created the Lead Director position in November 2009 to provide this balance.

The Board believes that the Company and its shareholders are best served by maintaining the flexibility to have either the same individual serve as Chairman and CEO or to separate those positions based on what is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders at a given point in time. The Board believes that the members of the Board possess considerable experience, breadth of skills and unique knowledge of the challenges and the opportunities the Company faces and that the Board is best positioned to identify the person who has the skill and commitment to be an effective Chairman.

The Board believes there is no single best organizational model that is the most effective in all circumstances, and the Board retains the right to separate the positions of Chairman and CEO if it deems it appropriate in the future.

Lead Director

Richard D. Parsons was appointed as the Lead Director for the Board in February 2018 by the independent members of the Board. Mr. Parsons is a strong, independent and active Director with clearly defined leadership authority and responsibilities. In addition to his role as Lead Director, Mr. Parsons serves as Chair of the Workplace and Culture Committee and as a member of the Compensation Committee and the Nominating & Governance Committee.

21

The responsibilities and duties of the Lead Director include the following:

Our Lead Director also presides at meetings of the Board, or the relevant portions of such meetings, when it would not be appropriate for our Chairman and CEO to preside.

The Board believes Mr. Jacobs serving as Chairman and CEO and Mr. Parsons serving as a separate and independent Lead Director provides the best form of leadership for the Company at the present time, offers an appropriate balance between the roles and provides a satisfactory counterbalance to the combined role of Chairman and CEO.

22

RISK OVERSIGHT

Management within each of Lazard’s operating locations is principally responsible for managing the risks within its respective business on a day-to-day basis. The Board, working together with the Audit Committee, undertakes a comprehensive review of the Company’s risk profile and risk management strategies at regular intervals. Members of the Company’s finance team, led by the Chief Financial Officer and the Chief Risk Officer, review with the Audit Committee categories of risk the Company faces, including any risk concentrations, risk interrelationships and financial and cyber risk exposures, as well as the likelihood of occurrence, the potential impact of those risks and the steps management has taken to monitor, mitigate and control such exposures. The Company’s Chief Information Officer and Chief Information Security Officer also frequently participate in these reviews. Updates on risks deemed material to the Company are reviewed at regular meetings of the Audit Committee and reported to the full Board. In addition, the Compensation Committee reviews compensation programs for consistency and alignment with Lazard’s strategic goals, and in connection therewith reviews Lazard’s compensation practices to assess the risk that they will have a material adverse effect on the Company.

AUDIT COMMITTEE

Philip A. Laskawy (Chair), Andrew M. Alper, Steven J. Heyer and Jane L. Mendillo

The Audit Committee met six times in 2017. The Audit Committee assists our Board of Directors in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities with respect to:

A detailed list of the Audit Committee’s functions is included in its charter, which is available on our website at www.lazard.com/investorrelations/.

The Audit Committee also selects and oversees Lazard’s independent auditor, and pre-approves all services to be performed by the independent auditor pursuant to the Audit Committee pre-approval policy. All members of the Audit Committee are independent as required by Lazard and the listing standards of the NYSE. All members of the Audit Committee are financially literate, as determined by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors has determined that Mr. Laskawy has the requisite qualifications to satisfy the SEC’s definition of “audit committee financial expert”.

23

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE

Andrew M. Alper (Chair), Steven J. Heyer, Michelle Jarrard, Philip A. Laskawy and Richard D. Parsons

The Compensation Committee met six times in 2017. The Compensation Committee assists the Board of Directors by overseeing our firm-wide compensation plans, policies and programs and has full authority to:

A detailed list of the Compensation Committee’s functions is included in its charter, which is available on our website at www.lazard.com/investorrelations/. All members of the Compensation Committee are independent as required by Lazard and the listing standards of the NYSE.

From time to time the Compensation Committee has established special equity award pools pursuant to the 2008 Plan for the express purpose of granting awards to new hires and, under certain circumstances, retention awards to key employees (other than our NEOs). The Compensation Committee granted to our CEO (or his designee) authority to determine the amount, terms and conditions of all awards made from these pools and required that the Compensation Committee be updated on all such awards at regularly scheduled meetings.

The Compensation Committee directly engaged Compensation Advisory Partners, or CAP, an independent compensation consulting firm, to assist it with various compensation analyses, as well as to provide consulting on executive compensation practices and determinations, including information on equity-based award design. CAP generally attends meetings of the Compensation Committee. In addition, Kenneth M. Jacobs, our CEO, generally attends meetings of the Compensation Committee and expresses his views on the Company’s overall compensation philosophy. Following year end, Mr. Jacobs makes recommendations to the Compensation Committee as to the total compensation package (salary, bonus and incentive compensation awards) to be paid to each of the other executive officers listed in the Summary Compensation Table below.

24

NOMINATING & GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

Steven J. Heyer (Chair), Richard N. Haass, Sylvia Jay, Iris Knobloch (effective April 1, 2018) and Richard D. Parsons

The Nominating & Governance Committee met four times in 2017. The Nominating & Governance Committee assists our Board of Directors in promoting sound corporate governance principles and practices by:

A detailed list of the Nominating & Governance Committee’s functions is included in its charter, which is available on our website at www.lazard.com/investorrelations/. The Nominating & Governance Committee also is responsible for recommending to the Board of Directors standards regarding the independence of non-executive directors and reviewing such standards on a regular basis to confirm that such standards remain consistent with sound corporate governance practices and with any legal, regulatory or NYSE requirements. All members of the Nominating & Governance Committee are independent as required by Lazard and the listing standards of the NYSE.

WORKPLACE AND CULTURE COMMITTEE

Richard D. Parsons (Chair), Richard N. Haass, Michelle Jarrard, Sylvia Jay and Jane L. Mendillo

The Board established the Workplace and Culture Committee in February 2018 to assist and advise management in continuing to cultivate and reinforce a workplace culture that helps attract, motivate and retain talented people, allows them to thrive, fosters productivity and professional and personal development, values diversity and inclusion, and encourages its people to engage with each other and their communities.

A detailed list of the Workplace and Culture Committee’s functions is included in its charter, which is available on our website at www.lazard.com/investorrelations/. All members of the Workplace and Culture Committee are independent.

25

ATTENDANCE

The Board met seven times in 2017. In 2017, overall attendance by our current directors (excluding Ms. Knobloch, who will join the Board on April 1, 2018) at meetings of the Board and its Committees averaged over 95%. Each such director attended at least 75% of the meetings of the Board and Committees on which he or she served. In 2017, all of our directors who were members of the Board following the 2017 annual general meeting of shareholders attended the annual general meeting.

CODES OF BUSINESS CONDUCT AND ETHICS

We have adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that is applicable to all directors, managing directors, officers and employees of Lazard and its subsidiaries and affiliates. We have also adopted a Supplement to the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics for certain other senior officers, including our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and principal accounting officer. Each of these codes is available on our website at www.lazard.com/investorrelations/. A print copy of each of these documents is available to any shareholder upon request. We intend to disclose amendments to, or waivers from, the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, if any, on our website.

COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE BOARD

Anyone who wishes to send a communication to our non-executive directors as a group may do so by mail at the address listed below, and by marking the envelope, Attn: Non-Executive Directors of the Lazard Ltd Board of Directors.

Lazard Ltd

30 Rockefeller Plaza

New York, NY 10112

The Lazard Ltd Board of Directors

c/o the Corporate Secretary

These procedures are also posted on our website at www.lazard.com/investorrelations/.

POLICY ON DIRECTOR QUALIFICATIONS AND NOMINATION PROCESS

The Board’s Nominating & Governance Committee is responsible for evaluating and recommending to the Board proposed nominees for election to the Board of Directors. As part of its process, the Nominating & Governance Committee will consider director candidates recommended for consideration by members of the Board, by management and by shareholders. It is the policy of the Nominating & Governance Committee to consider candidates recommended by shareholders in the same manner as other candidates. Candidates for the Board of Directors must be experienced, dedicated and meet the highest standards of ethics and integrity. All directors represent the interests of all shareholders, not

26

just the interests of any particular shareholder, shareholder group or other constituency. The Nominating & Governance Committee periodically reviews with the Board the requisite skills and characteristics for new directors, taking into account the needs of Lazard and the composition of the Board as a whole. A majority of our directors must satisfy the independence requirements of both Lazard and the NYSE. Likewise, each member of the Audit Committee must be financially literate and at least one member must possess the requisite qualifications to satisfy the SEC’s definition of “audit committee financial expert”. Once a candidate is identified, the Nominating & Governance Committee will consider the candidate’s mix of skills and experience with businesses and other organizations of comparable size, as well as his or her reputation, background and time availability (in light of anticipated needs). The Nominating & Governance Committee also will consider the interplay of the candidate’s experience with the experience of other Board members, the extent to which the candidate would be a desirable addition to the Board and any committees of the Board and any other factors it deems appropriate, including, among other things, diversity and inclusion. The Nominating & Governance Committee views diversity and inclusion broadly, encompassing differing viewpoints, professional experience, industry background, education, geographical orientation and particular skill sets, as well as race and gender. Shareholders wishing to recommend to the Nominating & Governance Committee a candidate for director at our 2019 Annual General Meeting of Shareholders may do so by submitting in writing such candidate’s name, in compliance with the procedures of our Bye-laws, and along with the other information required by our Bye-laws, to the Secretary of our Board of Directors at: Lazard Ltd, Office of the Secretary, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York 10112 between December 25, 2018 and January 24, 2019.

DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

Pursuant to the corporate governance listing standards of the NYSE, the Board of Directors has adopted standards for determining whether directors have material relationships with Lazard. The standards are set forth on Annex A to this Proxy Statement. Under these standards, a director employed by Lazard cannot be deemed to be an “independent director”, and consequently Messrs. Jacobs and Bhutani are not independent directors of Lazard.

The Board of Directors has determined that none of our other directors have a material relationship with Lazard under the NYSE corporate governance listing standards and the Board of Directors’ standards for director independence and, accordingly, that each of our directors (other than Messrs. Jacobs and Bhutani) is independent under the NYSE corporate governance listing standards.

In addition, as discussed under “Information Regarding the Board of Directors and Corporate Governance—Director Independence” in our annual proxy statement filed with the SEC on March 14, 2017, in early 2017, the Board of Directors determined that none of our directors (other than Messrs. Jacobs and Bhutani) or director nominees at that time had a material relationship with Lazard under the Board of Directors’ standards for director independence and, accordingly, that each such director and director nominee was independent under the NYSE corporate governance listing standards.

27

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION FOR 2017

Directors who are officers of the Company do not receive any fees for their service as directors. In 2017, our directors’ compensation program provided that each of our non-employee directors would receive an annual cash retainer of $119,250 and an annual award of deferred stock units, or DSUs, with a grant date value of $145,750. An additional annual retainer was paid to the Lead Director and the chairs of each committee of the Board of Directors as follows: the Lead Director, $50,000; the chair of the Audit Committee, $30,000; the chair of the Nominating & Governance Committee, $20,000; and the chair of the Compensation Committee, $20,000. The other members of the Audit Committee were paid an additional annual retainer of $20,000, and the other members of the Nominating & Governance Committee and the Compensation Committee were paid an additional annual retainer of $15,000, in respect of each applicable committee. All additional annual retainers were payable 45% in cash and 55% in DSUs. The Nominating & Governance Committee reviewed this compensation program in July 2017 and determined not to increase any director compensation payable under the program.

Cash compensation is paid out on a quarterly basis (on February 15, May 15, August 15 and November 15, or, in each case, the first business day thereafter), and the DSU awards described above are granted on an annual basis on June 1st of each year, or the first business day thereafter, except for initial pro-rated grants made to new directors upon their election or appointment to the Board of Directors. The number of DSUs granted is determined based on the NYSE closing price of our Class A common stock on the trading day immediately preceding the date of grant.

Non-employee directors may elect to receive additional DSUs in lieu of some or all of their cash compensation pursuant to the Directors Fee Deferral Unit Plan, which was approved by the Board of Directors in May 2006. DSUs awarded under this plan are granted on the same quarterly payment dates as cash compensation would have been received, and the number of DSUs is determined based on the NYSE closing price of our Class A common stock on the trading day immediately preceding the date of grant. Messrs. Alper, Haass, Heyer and Parsons and Ms. Mendillo elected to participate in this plan during 2017 and have each elected to continue to participate in this plan during 2018.

All DSUs awarded under these arrangements are converted to shares of our Class A common stock on a one-for-one basis and distributed to a director only after he or she resigns from, or otherwise ceases to be a member of, the Board of Directors. Dividend equivalent payments are made in respect of DSUs, which are paid in cash at the same rate and time that dividends are paid on shares of our Class A common stock.

The Nominating & Governance Committee regularly reviews our director compensation program. In connection with the formation of the Workplace and Culture Committee in February 2018, consistent with our director compensation program, the Nominating & Governance Committee determined that the chair of the Workplace and Culture Committee would receive an additional annual retainer of $20,000, and that the other members of the Workplace and Culture Committee would receive an additional annual retainer of $15,000, in each case payable 45% in cash and 55% in DSUs.

28

The table below sets forth the compensation paid to our non-employee directors during 2017.

29

BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF MORE THAN 5% OF OUR COMMON STOCK

Based on filings made under Section 13(d) and Section 13(g) of the Exchange Act, as of March 2, 2018, the only persons known by us to be beneficial owners of more than 5% of our Class A common stock were as follows:

30

BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

The following table shows the number of shares of Class A common stock that each director, each executive officer named in the Summary Compensation Table, and all directors and executive officers as a group have reported as owning beneficially, or otherwise having a pecuniary interest in, as of March 2, 2018 (including any equity awards which are scheduled to vest within 60 days of that date). To our knowledge, except as indicated in the footnotes to this table and pursuant to applicable community property laws, the persons named in the table have sole voting and investment power with respect to all shares of common stock beneficially owned by them. The address for each listed person is c/o Lazard Ltd, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York 10112.

31

32

ITEM 2

AN ADVISORY VOTE REGARDING EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

The Board is committed to compensation governance and recognizes the significant interest of shareholders in executive compensation matters. We provide our shareholders annually with an opportunity to cast an advisory vote regarding the compensation of our Named Executive Officers, or NEOs, as disclosed in this Proxy Statement.

As further discussed under “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” below, our Company performed well in 2017 and delivered strong results. We believe that our compensation philosophy and discipline, as successfully implemented on a firm-wide basis by our NEOs during 2017, contributed to our strong performance.

As this is an advisory vote, the result will not be binding on the Board, although our Compensation Committee, which is comprised solely of independent directors, will carefully consider the outcome of the vote when evaluating the effectiveness of our compensation policies and practices.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends that you vote FOR the following resolution:

RESOLVED, that the shareholders of the Company vote on a non-binding, advisory basis FOR the compensation paid to the Company’s named executive officers, as disclosed pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, compensation tables and narrative discussion.

Unless otherwise directed in the proxy, the persons named in the proxy will vote FOR the foregoing resolution.

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

In addition to performing the roles and responsibilities described under “Information Regarding the Board of Directors and Corporate Governance—Compensation Committee” above, our Compensation Committee, which is comprised entirely of independent directors, determined the 2017 compensation of our NEOs: Kenneth M. Jacobs, Chairman and CEO; Evan L. Russo, Chief Financial Officer from October 1, 2017; Ashish Bhutani, CEO of LAM; Scott D. Hoffman, Chief Administrative Officer and General Counsel; Alexander F. Stern, Chief Operating Officer and CEO of Financial Advisory; and Matthieu Bucaille, Chief Financial Officer until September 30, 2017. Prior to being appointed Chief Financial Officer of the Company, Mr. Russo served as Managing Director and Co-Head of the Company’s Capital Markets and Capital Structure Advisory practice. After ceasing to serve as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, Mr. Bucaille became Chief Executive Officer of Lazard International and Chief Executive Officer of Compagnie Financière Lazard Frères and Lazard Frères Banque in Paris.

33

2017 BUSINESS PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS

As further discussed under “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, our Company performed well in 2017 and delivered strong results. We believe that our compensation philosophy and discipline, as successfully implemented on a firm-wide basis by our NEOs during 2017, contributed to our strong performance.

Our Compensation Committee focused, among other things, on the following selected consolidated financial information in evaluating the performance of our NEOs and setting their performance-based compensation—that is, all compensation beyond their base salaries—for 2017.

Selected Consolidated Financial Information

($ in millions, unless otherwise noted)

Endnotes to this Compensation Discussion and Analysis are located on page 68.

34

SELECTED 2017 BUSINESS PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS

35

SELECTED 2017 COMPENSATION HIGHLIGHTS

36

OUR SHAREHOLDER ADVISORY VOTES REGARDING EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

37

OUR COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY AND OBJECTIVES

We Strive to Retain and Attract Talented Individuals. Our people are our most important asset. It is imperative to continue to retain, attract and motivate executives and professionals of the highest quality and effectiveness.

We Pay for Performance. We firmly believe that pay should be tied to performance. Superior performance enhances shareholder value and is a fundamental objective of our compensation programs.

38

We are Committed to Compensation Governance and Independence. Our Compensation Committee, which oversees our compensation philosophy, is committed to ensuring that our compensation programs conform to our pay-for-performance paradigm.

39

40

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PRACTICES: WHAT WE DO

41

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PRACTICES: WHAT WE DON’T DO

42

DESIGN OF OUR COMPENSATION SYSTEMS—BASE SALARY

Base Salary. Base salaries are intended to reflect the experience, skill and knowledge of our NEOs, managing directors and other senior professionals in their particular roles and responsibilities, while retaining the flexibility to appropriately compensate for fluctuations in performance, both of the Company and the individual.

43

DESIGN OF OUR COMPENSATION SYSTEMS—PERFORMANCE-BASED COMPENSATION

Cash Bonuses. Except for base salaries, all cash compensation opportunity is based on a combination of Company and individual performance. Accordingly, the cash compensation paid to our NEOs and employees as a group has fluctuated from year to year, reflecting changes in the Company’s performance and financial results, as well as individual performance.

PRSU Awards. PRSUs are restricted stock units that are subject to performance-based, service-based and other vesting conditions.

44

45

46

PRSU FINANCIAL METRICS

The Compensation Committee determined that three financial ratios are the most appropriate and, taken together, comprehensive financial metrics for purposes of PRSU awards granted in 2018 in respect of 2017 compensation: our Volatility Adjusted Revenue Growth Ratio, or VARGR, our Capital Return Ratio, or CRR, and our Awarded Operating Margin, or AOM, each of which is described in further detail below. Collectively, the VARGR, CRR and AOM metrics align directly with our long-term strategy of driving shareholder returns through high-quality revenue and earnings growth, focusing on reducing volatility, managing operating margin and returning capital to our shareholders. These performance metrics also reflect, among other things, the manner in which the Compensation Committee measures the success that the NEOs can achieve in executing our long-term strategy and managing our business for the benefit of our shareholders. An explanation of each financial ratio applicable to PRSU awards granted in 2018 in respect of 2017 compensation is set forth below.

Volatility Adjusted Revenue Growth Ratio – Relative Performance Measure

We seek to generate stable, high-quality revenue growth, and we believe that our shareholders value such revenue growth. Our innovative business model incorporates balanced growth initiatives and a diversity of businesses, including operations that are countercyclical, which we believe ultimately produces less volatile revenues. We believe that the VARGR performance metric aligns directly with our objective of achieving revenue growth while simultaneously limiting volatility in order to promote consistent, high-quality revenue growth over time. And, as described in more detail below, we evaluate this metric against the members of a relevant peer group. An explanation of the VARGR metric (which, as described under “Refinement of the PRSU Program” below, has been refined for PRSU awards granted since 2017) is set forth below.

47

If our VARGR ranking is between levels set forth in the table above, we will use linear interpolation to determine our VARGR score based on the scores provided for the closest levels.

48

Capital Return Ratio – Absolute Performance Measure

We endeavor to return capital to our shareholders, including by paying dividends to our shareholders, repurchasing equity and minimizing the need for additional capital in our business. We believe that our shareholders value our success in returning capital to them, and that the CRR performance metric aligns directly with our objective of returning capital. An explanation of the CRR metric is set forth below.

If our CRR is between levels set forth in the table above, we will use linear interpolation to determine our CRR score based on the scores provided for the closest levels.

49

Awarded Operating Margin – Absolute Performance Measure

Our objective is to effectively manage our operating costs. By managing our operating margin over time, we seek to advance our ultimate objective of increasing shareholder returns. We retain this objective even in years where revenue remains flat or declines, in which case we aim to stabilize and reduce our expenses. In that regard, in 2017 we implemented a new performance metric, which we refer to as awarded operating margin, or AOM, pursuant to which our NEOs are incentivized to improve our AOM.

We have established a formula that sets, for any year, a reference AOM against which our actual AOM can be compared and our performance can be evaluated. We begin by calculating the change in our operating revenue during the relevant year as compared to the previous year. Subsequently, we examine how that operating revenue change should be allocated to our shareholders by establishing, pursuant to the formula, the primary components of AOM, which are our awarded compensation expense and non-compensation expense. We compare the resultant reference AOM to our actual AOM for the relevant year, and the variance between our actual AOM and the reference AOM results in our AOM score. Specifically, the AOM score will be determined as follows:

(A) our operating revenue for the relevant year, less

(i) our awarded compensation expense for each segment of our business for the previous year, in each case adjusted by a pre-determined ratio of our operating revenue change (which ratio will vary according to our businesses, the extent of the operating revenue change, and depending on whether the operating revenue change is positive or negative)¹, less

(ii) (X) 75% of our non-compensation expense for the previous year (which allocation we believe generally reflects the fixed portion of our non-compensation expense over time), as adjusted for nominal growth, and (Y) the balance of our non-compensation expense for the previous year, adjusted by our operating revenue change,

¹ For years in which we have met our compensation expense ratio goals and with respect to which we have experienced some operating revenue change, such ratio generally ranges from 1.0 to 0.30 for each of our Financial Advisory and Asset Management businesses, depending on whether the operating revenue change is a positive or negative value. For other years, the relevant ratio generally would be outside of this range. For each of the last three years, the relevant ratio for each of our Financial Advisory and Asset Management businesses would have been within this range.

50

with the result of such calculation divided by

(B) our operating revenue for the relevant year.

If our actual AOM is between levels set forth in the table above, we will use linear interpolation to determine our AOM score based on the scores provided for the closest levels.

51

REFINEMENT OF THE PRSU PROGRAM

The Compensation Committee and our NEOs believe that the PRSU program is an important system that supports the generation of shareholder value over time. In light of this important purpose of the PRSU program, as well as the fact that macroeconomic conditions and the Company’s goals and objectives evolve over time, the Compensation Committee and our NEOs reassess the PRSU program at regular intervals. We believe that, since our introduction of the PRSU program in 2012, this continual process has enhanced the link between the performance metrics, scoring system and other elements of the PRSU program that have applied to new awards and the Company’s performance over the subsequent three-year performance period to which those awards relate.

In late 2016 and early 2017, the Compensation Committee, its independent compensation consultant, CAP, and our NEOs reviewed the PRSU program with respect to the PRSU awards that would be granted in early 2017. Following this review, the Compensation Committee determined, and the NEOs agreed, that the following program refinements – all of which are consistent with the objectives of the PRSU program described under “Design of Our Compensation Systems–Performance-Based Compensation” above – were in line with the Company’s evolving goals and objectives and were likely to support the generation of shareholder value over time. We also believe that the aggregate effect of these refinements has been to further increase the overall rigor of the PRSU program to better reflect the current environment.

52

53

PRSU SCORING

Generally, each of the three performance metrics (VARGR, CRR and AOM) is weighted equally. The determination of the number of PRSUs that may ultimately vest under each award generally will be based on the Company’s cumulative performance over the three-year performance period. The scoring corresponds directly to the level of achievement of performance goals (taking into account any applicable interpolation).

For example, the achievement of a score of 1.50 for the cumulative three-year performance period would translate into payout of the PRSU award at 1.50 times the target level (subject to achievement of the service-based vesting condition), but an overall score above 2.0 would automatically be reduced to 2.0, thereby capping payout of the PRSU award at two times the target level. Similarly, the achievement of a score of 0.50 for the cumulative three-year performance period would translate into payout of the PRSU award at 0.50 times the target level (subject to achievement of the service-based vesting condition).

Each of the three performance metrics will also be evaluated on an annual basis at the end of each fiscal year during the performance period. For this purpose, the same scoring ranges, weighting system and reference points will be used, but the evaluation will be based solely on performance during that fiscal year. If the Company achieves an aggregate score of at least 1.0 with respect to such fiscal year, as confirmed by the Compensation Committee, then 25% of the total target number of shares of Class A common stock subject to the PRSUs will no longer be at risk based on achievement of the performance criteria. Any such PRSUs will remain subject to the service-based vesting criteria described herein (and the total payout with respect to such PRSUs could increase based on the Company’s performance over the performance period). The Compensation Committee retains full discretion with respect to the interpretation and application of the scoring systems described above.

Additional information regarding the scoring of outstanding PRSU awards is set forth below. As described under “Refinement of the PRSU Program” above, the PRSUs granted in 2016 and 2015 in respect of 2015 and 2014 compensation, respectively, are based on the Company’s performance with respect to VARGR, CRR and OLR, respectively. For a more detailed description of the OLR metric and the scoring applicable to OLR, VARGR and CRR metrics for the PRSUs granted in 2016 and 2015, see the discussions under “Compensation Discussion and Analysis—PRSU Financial Metrics” in our annual proxy statement filed with the SEC on March 10, 2016, and “Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Design of Our Compensation Programs—Performance-Based Incentive Compensation” in our annual proxy statement filed with the SEC on March 16, 2015, respectively.

54

DESIGN OF OUR COMPENSATION SYSTEMS—OTHER FEATURES

Long-Term Incentive Awards Are the Primary Component of Compensation for Our Most Senior Professionals. In February 2018, we applied a progressive formula based on total compensation for all of our NEOs, managing directors and senior professionals. Pursuant to this formula, as a recipient’s total compensation (cash salary, cash bonus and long-term incentive compensation) increases, a greater percentage of his or her total compensation is composed of long-term incentive awards. This formula is based on a sliding scale that effectively begins at 5% for some of our vice presidents and directors and generally reaches 60% (or 50% in our Asset Management business) for our highest paid managing directors.

Stock Ownership Guidelines. We have stock ownership guidelines for our NEOs, which require our CEO and the other NEOs to own shares of our Class A common stock, or equity awards that ultimately will vest into shares (including restricted stock, PRSUs (considered at the target payout level) and RSUs), equal to, in the case of our CEO, six times his base salary, and in the case of each other NEO, three times his base salary. Each NEO has five years from the date that the guidelines began to apply to the NEO to attain the required ownership levels. All of our NEOs currently exceed the required ownership levels. In addition, our non-employee directors receive a majority of their compensation in the form of DSUs that remain invested in the Company until they leave the Board of Directors.

55

Compensation Clawback Policy. We have a compensation clawback policy for our NEOs. Pursuant to our clawback policy, if the Board of Directors determines that any bonus, incentive payment, equity award or other compensation awarded to or received by an NEO was based on any financial results or operating metrics that were achieved as a result of that NEO’s intentional fraudulent or illegal conduct, we will seek to recover from the NEO such compensation (in whole or in part) as the Board of Directors deems appropriate under the circumstances and as permitted by law.

Anti-Hedging Policy. We have an anti-hedging policy for our NEOs that restricts them from engaging in hedging transactions with respect to our Class A common stock.

Double-Trigger Vesting. We apply “double-trigger” vesting for long-term incentive awards to our NEOs in respect of their service as NEOs. Any such awards will not immediately accelerate upon a change in control, but instead will require both a change in control and another customary event, such as a qualifying termination, to vest.

No Enhanced Change in Control Severance. We do not provide enhanced severance to our NEOs if they are terminated in connection with a change in control.

No Excise Tax Gross-Ups. The retention agreements for each of our NEOs do not provide for excise tax gross-up provisions and reflect feedback from our shareholders, evolving best practices and our commitment to excellence in compensation governance.

2017 COMPENSATION FOR EACH OF OUR NEOS—COMPENSATION PROCESS

Decisions with regard to incentive compensation are generally made in the first quarter of each year and are based on Company and individual performance in the prior fiscal year.

56

Structure of 2017 NEO Decision-Making Process

Rate Overall 2017 Business Performance

Consider Reference Pay Ranges for Each Position

Determine Compensation for Each NEO

57

Our Compensation Committee Considers a Variety of Available Information. Before any year-end compensation decisions are made, the Compensation Committee reviews information from a variety of available sources.

58

CAP’s analysis compared the total direct compensation for our NEOs (calculated with respect to 2016 base salary and actual cash bonuses, deferred cash awards and PRSUs (valued at the target payout level and awarded in February 2017 in respect of 2016 compensation) to the total direct compensation for the appropriate named executive officers in the comparator group described above, or an appropriate subset of that comparator group, calculated based on compensation levels for 2016 (as reported in 2017). Peer data for 2017 was not fully available at the time of CAP’s analysis. CAP constructed a compensation reference range for each of our NEOs based on the comparator data as follows: for Mr. Jacobs, $9.5 million to $12.5 million; for Mr. Russo, $3.5 million to $4.5 million; for Mr. Bhutani, $9 million to $12 million; for Mr. Hoffman, $3.5 million to $5.5 million; for Mr. Stern, $5.5 million to $8.25 million; and for Mr. Bucaille, $3.5 million to $4.5 million. See “Awarded Compensation Table” below for a table describing the compensation paid to each of our NEOs for 2017, presented in the manner that it was considered by the Compensation Committee (which was similar to the methodology used by CAP in calculating total direct compensation paid by the firms in the comparator group).

While the Compensation Committee considered the level of compensation paid by the firms in the comparator group in connection with its compensation decisions, in order to maintain competiveness and flexibility, the Compensation Committee did not target compensation at a particular level relative to the comparator group (or relevant subset of the group). This information was only one of several data points that the Compensation Committee considered in evaluating compensation for our NEOs.

2017 COMPENSATION FOR EACH OF OUR NEOS—COMPENSATION DECISIONS

2017 Base Salaries. We have retention agreements with our NEOs that establish their respective minimum annual base salaries. These amounts were negotiated and were meant to ensure that the Company would have the services of each of the NEOs during the term of their respective agreements. See “Compensation of Executive Officers—Grants of Plan-Based Awards—Retention Agreements with our NEOs” below. The base salary paid in 2017 to Mr. Jacobs was $900,000 and to each of Messrs. Bhutani, Hoffman, Stern and Bucaille was $750,000, which, in each case, is the minimum base salary set forth in the respective retention agreement. The minimum base salary for Mr. Russo, which became effective October 1, 2017, also was $750,000 for annual periods following that date. Although we entered into amended retention agreements with each of our NEOs (other than Mr. Russo) in March 2016, their minimum annual base salaries have remained unchanged for over six years.

59

2017 Incentive Compensation. As a general matter, the Compensation Committee noted that it was mindful of the compensation discipline that has been applied throughout the Company, and the ongoing leadership and support of each NEO in connection with that initiative.

In addition to the matters considered by the Compensation Committee with respect to each NEO, which are described in detail below, the Compensation Committee considered each NEO’s positioning on an internal pay scale vis-à-vis managing directors within the Company and competitive compensation practices at other firms.

Mr. Jacobs. The Compensation Committee noted that our Company performed extremely well in 2017 and delivered strong results. The Company continued to adhere to the financial goals set in 2012, which it successfully achieved in 2017 once again. The Company achieved record annual operating revenue of $2,655 million in 2017, up 13% from 2016. The Company’s 2017 awarded operating income of $718 million increased 21% compared to 2016, and the Company’s awarded operating margin was a record 27% in 2017, compared to 25% in 2016. The Company’s Financial Advisory and Asset Management businesses each achieved a record level of operating revenue in 2017. The Company also returned $716 million of capital to its shareholders in 2017.

In evaluating incentive compensation for Mr. Jacobs, the Compensation Committee considered these important achievements, the other information regarding our Company’s performance described under “2017 Business Performance Highlights” above, and Mr. Jacobs’ extensive individual accomplishments. The Compensation Committee also considered the Company’s total shareholder return (TSR).

In addition, the Compensation Committee considered the goals and objectives established for Mr. Jacobs by the Compensation Committee in early 2017. These goals and objectives provided the Compensation Committee with a set of criteria that assisted the Compensation Committee in its evaluation of Mr. Jacobs’ performance in 2017.

The Compensation Committee specifically noted the following accomplishments as a result of Mr. Jacobs’ initiative, ongoing leadership and dedication during 2017:

60

In addition, the Compensation Committee considered Mr. Jacobs’ individual contributions to the Company’s Financial Advisory business, which have generated and are expected to continue to generate significant revenue for the Company, and have enhanced Lazard’s valuable reputation as a preeminent financial advisory and asset management firm. Mr. Jacobs led and continues to lead teams within our Financial Advisory business that advised and continue to advise clients on significant merger and acquisition transactions during 2017 and 2018.

Together with its independent compensation consultant, the Compensation Committee thoroughly reviewed the Company’s past compensation practices and the competitive compensation practices at other firms. The Compensation Committee also considered Mr. Jacobs’ strong desire to implement compensation discipline throughout the firm, as well as the success of his efforts to strengthen leadership and coordination throughout the Company and his strategic vision.

Based on its review, the Compensation Committee decided to grant Mr. Jacobs an incentive compensation award of $11.6 million, payable as follows: a PRSU award valued at $7.5 million (based on the achievement of performance goals at the target level) and a $4.1 million cash bonus. The PRSUs awarded to Mr. Jacobs constituted approximately 60% of Mr. Jacobs’ total compensation for 2017. The total performance-based compensation awarded to Mr. Jacobs constituted approximately 93% of his total compensation for 2017.

61

The following charts show Mr. Jacobs’ mix of fixed versus performance-based compensation, and cash incentive versus long-term incentive compensation, for 2017 (based on the achievement of performance goals with respect to the PRSUs at the target level).

By linking 60% of Mr. Jacobs’ total compensation for 2017 directly to the future performance of our business through PRSUs, the majority of Mr. Jacobs’ compensation for 2017 will be at risk based on our ability to achieve growth and produce value for our shareholders over the next three years, notwithstanding his accomplishments in 2017. Given the combination of base salary, annual cash bonus and PRSUs awarded to Mr. Jacobs for 2017, the Compensation Committee believes it has struck the right balance between paying for current performance, on the one hand, and the desire to keep Mr. Jacobs focused on the Company’s long-term performance and continued growth, on the other hand.

Mr. Bhutani. In evaluating annual incentive compensation for Mr. Bhutani, the Compensation Committee and Mr. Jacobs considered his leadership and level of performance as the CEO of LAM and his commitment to the development and performance of LAM, as well as the strong overall performance of our Asset Management business in 2017, including the financial measures described under “2017 Business Performance Highlights” above. In a continuing difficult environment for active asset managers, our Asset Management business’s operating revenue in 2017 was a record $1,240 million, 20% higher than 2016. In addition, our Asset Management business achieved year-end assets under management, or AUM, of $249 billion in 2017, an increase of 26% over year-end AUM of $198 billion in 2016, with positive net flows for the year. The Compensation Committee and Mr. Jacobs also considered Mr. Bhutani’s significant efforts to further integrate the Company’s Asset Management operations in North America and Europe. The Compensation Committee approved the following incentive compensation for Mr. Bhutani for his performance in 2017: Mr. Bhutani received a cash bonus of $3.445 million, a PRSU award valued at $5.4 million (based on the achievement of performance goals at the target level) and a deferred cash award of $1.205 million. In light of Mr. Bhutani’s existing substantial level of investment in funds and other products managed by LAM, the Compensation Committee determined to grant all of Mr. Bhutani’s 2017 long-term incentive compensation in the form of PRSUs. This provided Mr. Bhutani with a mix of compensation that was consistent with the mix paid to the other NEOs. The PRSUs awarded to Mr. Bhutani constituted approximately 50% of his total compensation for 2017. The total performance-based compensation awarded to Mr. Bhutani constituted approximately 93% of his total compensation for 2017.

Mr. Hoffman. In evaluating incentive compensation for Mr. Hoffman, the Compensation Committee and Mr. Jacobs considered the significant leadership that Mr. Hoffman provides to

62

the Company. In his new role as Chief Administrative Officer, Mr. Hoffman drives the execution and coordination of initiatives and internal policies in support of the firm’s overall strategic objectives and provides input to, and guidance in, business planning. Mr. Hoffman also maintains his role as General Counsel and his wide-ranging responsibility for overseeing worldwide legal and compliance operations at the Company, as well as his diverse responsibilities for overseeing internal audit, global communications, legislative and regulatory affairs and other areas. The Compensation Committee and Mr. Jacobs considered Mr. Hoffman’s responsibility for establishing and implementing uniform internal policies within the Company, his contribution to the overall strength of the Company, and his contribution toward the achievement of the Company’s financial goals. Mr. Jacobs noted that Mr. Hoffman was a key contributor to the collective management team, providing leadership, advice and guidance to him, as CEO, and to the Compensation Committee, and the Compensation Committee and Mr. Jacobs further noted that Mr. Hoffman also provides such advice and guidance to the Board of Directors. The Compensation Committee approved the following incentive compensation for Mr. Hoffman for his performance in 2017: Mr. Hoffman received a cash bonus of $1.065 million and a PRSU award valued at $2.585 million (based on the achievement of performance goals at the target level). The PRSUs awarded to Mr. Hoffman constituted approximately 59% of his total compensation for 2017. The total performance-based compensation awarded to Mr. Hoffman constituted approximately 83% of his total compensation for 2017.

Mr. Russo. In evaluating incentive compensation for Mr. Russo, the Compensation Committee and Mr. Jacobs considered the significant leadership that Mr. Russo now provides to the Company in his role as Chief Financial Officer and his successful and efficient assumption of his new responsibilities, including worldwide responsibility for corporate finance, accounting and tax matters at the Company. The Compensation Committee and Mr. Jacobs noted that Mr. Russo’s transition into his role as Chief Financial Officer was seamless, and that he had coordinated well with Mr. Bucaille, the Company’s previous Chief Financial Officer, during the transition. The Compensation Committee and Mr. Jacobs also considered Mr. Russo’s role and performance as a Managing Director and Co-Head of the Company’s Capital Markets and Capital Structure Advisory practice from January 1, 2017 until October 1, 2017, the effective date of his appointment as Chief Financial Officer, as well as his continuing efforts in respect of important client relationships. The Compensation Committee approved the following incentive compensation for Mr. Russo for his performance in 2017: Mr. Russo received a cash bonus of $952,500, an RSU award valued at $471,250, an LFI award valued at $471,250 and a PRSU award valued at $942,500 (based on the achievement of performance goals at the target level). The mix of RSUs and LFIs awarded to Mr. Russo reflected his role as an employee of the Company’s Financial Advisory business during the first nine months of 2017, his transition into his new role as Chief Financial Officer since July 2017 (when the transition was announced), and the types of awards granted to similarly situated employees of the Company. The PRSUs awarded to Mr. Russo constituted approximately 28% of his total compensation for 2017. The total performance-based compensation awarded to Mr. Russo constituted approximately 83% of his total compensation for 2017.

Mr. Stern. In evaluating annual incentive compensation for Mr. Stern, the Compensation Committee and Mr. Jacobs considered several factors, including his performance as Chief Operating Officer of the Company and CEO of the Company’s Financial Advisory business,

63

which achieved a record level of operating revenue in 2017. The Compensation Committee and Mr. Jacobs further considered Mr. Stern’s overall contribution to the financial strength of the Company. Mr. Stern maintains a balance between his leadership and operating responsibilities within the firm, while continuing to cultivate important client relationships. The Compensation Committee and Mr. Jacobs considered Mr. Stern’s effective oversight, in his capacity as CEO of the Company’s Financial Advisory business, of managing directors and senior professionals overseeing various regions and business sectors on a global basis, as well as Mr. Stern’s key investments in the business during 2017 and his involvement in the continuing use and improvement of the Company’s firm-wide performance assessment systems. The Compensation Committee and Mr. Jacobs further focused on Mr. Stern’s key role in the successful perpetuation of the Company’s culture of cost discipline, which has continued to enable the Company to achieve its financial goals. The Compensation Committee approved the following incentive compensation for Mr. Stern for his performance in 2017: Mr. Stern received a cash bonus of $2.25 million and a PRSU award valued at $4.5 million (based on the achievement of performance goals at the target level). The PRSUs awarded to Mr. Stern constituted approximately 60% of Mr. Stern’s total compensation for 2017. The total performance-based compensation awarded to Mr. Stern constituted approximately 90% of his total compensation for 2017.

Mr. Bucaille. In evaluating incentive compensation for Mr. Bucaille, the Compensation Committee and Mr. Jacobs considered Mr. Bucaille’s effective leadership and diverse responsibilities as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer from January 1, 2017 until September 30, 2017, as well as Mr. Bucaille’s new senior roles effective October 1, 2017 as CEO of Lazard International and CEO of Compagnie Financière Lazard Frères and Lazard Frères Banque in Paris. As described above, the Compensation Committee and Mr. Jacobs also noted that Mr. Russo’s transition into his role as Chief Financial Officer was seamless, and that Mr. Bucaille had coordinated well with Mr. Russo during this transition. The Compensation Committee approved the following incentive compensation for Mr. Bucaille for his performance in 2017: Mr. Bucaille received a cash bonus of $885,000 and a PRSU award valued at $2.165 million (based on the achievement of performance goals at the target level). The PRSUs awarded to Mr. Bucaille constituted approximately 57% of his total compensation for 2017. The total performance-based compensation awarded to Mr. Bucaille constituted approximately 80% of his total compensation for 2017.

The following table, which we refer to as the Awarded Compensation Table, shows the base salary and incentive compensation awarded to our NEOs for their performance in 2017 in the manner it was considered by the Compensation Committee. This presentation differs from that contained in the Summary Compensation Table for 2017 in the following respects:

64

A similar methodology has been applied to reflect 2016 and 2015 compensation, which is included for each NEO (other than Mr. Russo, who was not an NEO in respect of those years) in order to provide a basis for comparison. For these prior years, the value of PRSUs, RSUs and LFIs is also reflected based on the fiscal year to which they relate, rather than the fiscal year in which they were granted, and based on notional value rather than on the grant date fair value as determined for accounting purposes.

65

AWARDED COMPENSATION TABLE

Perquisites. In 2017, each of our NEOs received less than $55,000 in perquisite compensation. Our NEOs are entitled to receive the same perquisite compensation provided to all of our U.S. managing directors as a group, including (i) the payment by the Company of a portion of the health insurance premiums for each of our U.S. managing directors on the same basis that it does for all U.S. employees, (ii) the payment by the Company of certain matching contributions on their personal contributions to the Company’s 401(k) plan, and (iii) being the named beneficiaries of a Company-provided life insurance and long-term disability insurance policy. In addition, Messrs. Jacobs, Russo, Hoffman, Stern and Bucaille each have access to an executive dining room that is available to certain of our managing directors in the New York City area. Each of our U.S. managing directors is entitled to have his or her year-end personal tax returns prepared by our tax department. Messrs. Jacobs, Bucaille, Hoffman and Stern have availed themselves of this benefit. This perquisite has been a historical practice of the firm, and is provided due to the complexity involved in preparing such tax returns as the Company continues to be viewed as a partnership for U.S. tax purposes.

Pension Benefits. Each of Messrs. Jacobs, Hoffman and Stern has an accrued benefit under the Lazard Frères & Co. LLC Employees’ Pension Plan, a qualified defined-benefit pension plan, and Messrs. Hoffman and Stern have accrued additional benefits under a related supplemental defined-benefit pension plan. In each case, these benefits accrued prior to the applicable NEO becoming a managing director of the Company. Benefit accruals under both of these plans were frozen for all participants effective January 31, 2005, and our NEOs will not accrue any additional benefits. For additional information regarding benefits accrued by or payable to Messrs. Jacobs, Hoffman and Stern under these plans as of December 31, 2017, see “Compensation of Executive Officers—Pension Benefits” below.

NEO Retention Agreements. In anticipation of the expiration of the prior retention agreements with our NEOs, which was scheduled to occur on March 31, 2016, on March 9, 2016, we

66

entered into amended retention agreements with each of our NEOs at that time. In addition, in connection with Mr. Russo’s appointment, effective October 1, 2017, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, we entered into a retention agreement with Mr. Russo on terms substantially similar to the amended retention agreements with our other NEOs. For a description of the terms of the NEOs’ retention agreements, see “Compensation of Executive Officers–Retention Agreements with Our NEOs” and “Compensation of Executive Officers—Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control” below.

Vesting of PRSUs, RSUs and LFIs. In general, unvested PRSUs, RSUs, LFIs and similar awards are forfeited by our NEOs upon termination of employment, except in cases such as death, disability, a termination by the Company other than for “cause” (which, for purposes of these awards, includes a resignation for “good reason”) or a qualifying retirement pursuant to our RSU Retirement Policy. See “Compensation of Our Executive Officers—RSU Retirement Policy” below. As described under “Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Design of Our Compensation Programs—Other Features” above, the Company has adopted “double-trigger” vesting for NEO incentive awards, including PRSUs granted to our NEOs in respect of their service as NEOs.

Risks Related to Compensation Policies. In keeping with our risk management framework, we consider risks not only in the abstract, but also risks that might hinder the achievement of a particular objective. We have identified two primary risks relating to compensation: that compensation will be insufficient to retain talented individuals and that compensation strategies might result in unintended incentives. To combat the first risk, as noted above, the compensation of employees throughout the Company is reviewed against comparative compensation data, permitting us to set compensation levels that we believe contribute to low rates of voluntary employee attrition. Further, long-term incentive compensation (including PRSUs, RSUs, restricted stock and LFIs) awarded to our NEOs, managing directors and other senior professionals are generally subject to long-term vesting periods. We believe both the levels of compensation and the structure of the PRSUs, RSUs, LFIs and similar awards have had the effect of aiding our retention of our NEOs and other key employees.

With respect to the second risk, our Company-wide year-end discretionary compensation program is designed to reflect the performance of the Company, the performance of the business in which the employee works and the performance of the individual employee, and is designed to discourage excessive risk-taking. For example, paying a significant portion of our year-end compensation in the form of long-term incentive compensation (including PRSUs, RSUs and restricted stock) with long-term vesting periods makes or should make each of our NEOs, managing directors and other senior professionals sensitive to long-term risk outcomes, as the value of their awards increases or decreases with the performance of the Company, in the case of PRSUs, and the price of our Class A common stock, in the case of PRSUs, RSUs and restricted stock. In addition, PRSU performance criteria include adjustments for revenue volatility in recognition of our belief that more volatile growth is less valuable to our shareholders. We believe these criteria will provide our employees additional incentives to prudently manage the wide range of risks inherent in the Company’s business. We are not aware of any employee behavior motivated by our compensation policies and practices that creates increased risks for shareholders or our clients.

Based on the foregoing, we do not believe that our compensation policies and practices create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

67

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis required by Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K with management and, based on such review and discussions, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this Proxy Statement.

Compensation Committee

Andrew M. Alper (Chair), Steven J. Heyer, Michelle Jarrard, Philip A. Laskawy and Richard D. Parsons

Compensation Discussion and Analysis Endnotes

68

COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

The following table contains information with respect to our NEOs in the manner required by SEC rules. We believe that the better way to view this information is as set forth in the Awarded Compensation Table under “Compensation Discussion and Analysis—2017 Compensation for Each of Our NEOs—Compensation Decisions” above, as the information set forth below:

Similarly, the information with respect to 2016 and 2015 compensation includes PRSUs, RSUs and LFIs, as applicable, granted in the relevant calendar year, which related to the previous year’s performance, and does not include PRSUs, RSUs and LFIs, as applicable, granted with respect to the relevant calendar year’s performance.

69

Summary Compensation Table

70

71

GRANTS OF PLAN BASED AWARDS

The following table provides information about PRSUs, RSUs and LFIs, as applicable, granted to each of our NEOs during fiscal year 2017 in respect of 2016 performance.

The PRSUs included in the table above are subject to performance-based and service-based and other vesting criteria and represent a contingent right to receive a number of shares of our Class A common stock that will range from zero to two times the target number (i.e., one times). Assuming satisfaction of the applicable vesting criteria, the PRSUs granted on February 7, 2017 to each of our NEOs who were NEOs on that date will vest on or around March 2, 2020. The payout level at which the PRSUs will vest is determined based on the score over a performance period beginning January 1, 2017 and ending on December 31, 2019 with respect to VARGR, CRR and AOM financial metrics and our performance relative to the performance of our peers; provided, however, that each of the three performance metrics also are evaluated on an annual basis at the end of each fiscal year during the performance period and may result in 25% of the total target number of shares of our Class A common stock subject to the PRSUs no longer being at risk based on the achievement of the performance criteria. See “Design of Our Compensation Programs—Performance-Based Compensation” above.

After the end of 2017, the Compensation Committee evaluated our performance for 2017 with respect to each of the three generally applicable performance metrics and determined that such performance exceeded an aggregate score of 1.0 for 2017. Accordingly, 25% of the total target number of shares of our Class A common stock subject to the PRSUs included in the table above are not subject to further achievement of performance goals due to our performance in 2017 (but remain subject to the service-based or other vesting criteria described above).

The RSUs included in the table above are subject to service-based vesting criteria and represent a contingent right to receive an equivalent number of shares of our Class A common stock. Assuming satisfaction of the applicable vesting criteria, approximately one-third of the RSUs granted on February 7, 2017 to Mr. Russo will vest on or around March 1, 2019 and the balance of such RSUs will vest on or around March 2, 2020.

Each of our NEOs signed a PRSU or RSU, as applicable, award agreement in connection with his award. In general, these agreements provide that unvested PRSUs and RSUs are forfeited on termination of employment, except in cases such as death, disability, a termination by the Company other than for “cause” (which includes for these purposes a resignation for “good reason”) or a

72

qualifying retirement pursuant to our RSU Retirement Policy. See “RSU Retirement Policy” and “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control” below. During the performance period, the target number of PRSUs (and, after the performance period, the actual number of shares of Class A common stock subject to the PRSUs that are earned based on achievement of performance conditions) receive dividend equivalents at the same rate that dividends are paid on shares of our Class A common stock. These dividend equivalents are credited as RSUs or restricted stock that are not subject to the performance-based vesting criteria but are otherwise subject to the same restrictions as the underlying PRSUs to which they relate. Similarly, during the period ending on the applicable vesting date, the RSUs granted to Mr. Russo receive dividend equivalents at the same rate that dividends are paid on shares of our Class A common stock, which remain subject to the same restrictions as the underlying RSUs to which they relate. In addition, the PRSU and RSU agreements contain standard covenants including, among others, noncompetition and nonsolicitation of our clients and employees.

The LFIs included in the table above represent interests in certain Lazard investment funds. Pursuant to the terms of these awards, a portion of Mr. Russo’s incentive compensation is invested in funds managed by LAM. The dollar value (determined as of the grant date) of the portion of Mr. Russo’s incentive compensation that is invested in such funds is included in the table above. The LFIs granted on February 7, 2017 to Mr. Russo will vest as follows: one-third on or around March 1, 2019 and two-thirds on or around March 2, 2020. Mr. Russo signed an LFI award agreement in connection with his award, which provides that unvested LFIs are forfeited on termination of employment, except in limited cases such as death, disability, a termination by the Company other than for “cause” (which includes for these purposes a resignation for “good reason”) or a qualifying retirement pursuant to the RSU Retirement Policy. See “RSU Retirement Policy” and “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control” below. In the event the investment funds in which the LFIs are invested distribute earnings, such earnings are automatically reinvested in additional LFIs, with the same restrictions as the underlying LFIs to which they relate. In addition, Mr. Russo’s LFI award agreement contains standard covenants including, among others, noncompetition and nonsolicitation of our clients and employees.

RSU RETIREMENT POLICY

Pursuant to the RSU Retirement Policy, outstanding and unvested RSUs will vest (and in the case of members of Lazard Group who report income from Lazard Group and its affiliates on Schedule K-1 to Lazard Group’s Federal income tax return, RSUs and certain PRSUs will be settled in restricted stock) as long as (i) the holder is at least 56 years old, (ii) the holder has completed at least five years of service with the Company, (iii) the sum of the holder’s actual age and years of service is at least 70, and (iv) commencing with the RSUs and PRSUs granted in 2017, the holder has completed a service period of approximately three months following the date of grant. Similarly, following the retirement eligibility date, the service-based vesting criteria of the PRSUs will no longer apply, but the performance-based vesting criteria will continue to apply through the end of the applicable performance period, including following the executive’s retirement during the performance period. Following retirement, the RSUs, PRSUs and restricted stock granted to the former RSU and PRSU holders, as applicable, remains subject to all restrictive covenants, including continued compliance with

73

non-compete, non-solicit and other provisions contained in the original award agreement through the original vesting date of the RSUs or PRSUs, as applicable, notwithstanding any expiration date specified therein. Any dividends payable with respect to the restricted stock are held in escrow until the forfeiture provisions lapse. A recipient of restricted stock is required to make an election under Section 83(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, which subjects him or her to taxation on such restricted stock on the date of grant. With the consent of the compliance department of the Company, a recipient may dispose of a portion of the restricted stock granted to him or her to pay such taxes. Pursuant to the restricted stock and LFI award agreements, the RSU Retirement Policy also applies to restricted stock and LFIs.

Although Mr. Jacobs satisfied the age and service criteria pursuant to the RSU Retirement Policy in September 2014, due to his previous waiver of retirement eligibility, he became retirement eligible on March 31, 2016, which is the date that his prior retention agreement was scheduled to expire. Mr. Bhutani became retirement eligible on May 8, 2017, which was the date that he satisfied the age and service criteria pursuant to the RSU Retirement Policy. In addition, Mr. Bucaille became retirement eligible on February 6, 2016, which was the date that he satisfied the age and service criteria pursuant to the RSU Retirement Policy. However, the special award of 71,085 RSUs granted to Mr. Bucaille in March 2011 (as well as accrued dividend equivalent payments) is not subject to the RSU Retirement Policy. Instead, these RSUs were converted into shares of restricted stock that will be forfeited unless Mr. Bucaille remains employed through the original vesting date, which is March 1, 2019 (unless his employment is terminated prior to that date as a result of death, disability, a termination by us without “cause” or a termination by Mr. Bucaille for “good reason”). The retirement eligibility dates for Messrs. Russo, Hoffman and Stern are August 2, 2030, December 24, 2018 and November 4, 2022, respectively.

RETENTION AGREEMENTS WITH OUR NEOS

In anticipation of the expiration of the prior retention agreements with our NEOs (other than Mr. Russo), which was scheduled to occur on March 31, 2016, on March 9, 2016, we entered into amended retention agreements with each of our NEOs. Generally, the provision of services under the retention agreements is terminable by either party upon three months’ notice, and the agreements also contain the terms and conditions set forth below. Effective as of October 30, 2017, we entered into an amendment to Mr. Hoffman’s amended retention agreement solely to reflect that, in addition to continuing to serve as General Counsel of the Company, effective July 26, 2017, Mr. Hoffman was appointed Chief Administrative Officer of the Company. In addition, in connection with Mr. Russo’s appointment, effective October 1, 2017, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, effective as of October 30, 2017, we entered into a retention agreement with Mr. Russo with terms substantially similar to the amended retention agreements with our other NEOs.

Compensation and Employee Benefits. The term of the amended retention agreements for our NEOs expires on March 31, 2019 or, if later, the second anniversary of a change in control of the Company. The retention agreements with our NEOs provide for a minimum annual base salary of $900,000 for Mr. Jacobs and $750,000 for each of Messrs. Russo, Bhutani, Hoffman, Stern and Bucaille. In addition, each of our NEOs is entitled to an annual bonus to be determined under the Company’s applicable annual bonus plan on the same

74

basis as annual bonuses are determined for other executive officers of the Company; provided that, in each case, the NEO is employed by the Company at the end of the applicable fiscal year. Such bonus will be paid in the same ratio of cash to equity and deferred awards as is generally applicable to other executives receiving comparable bonuses. The retention agreements with our NEOs also provide that each is entitled to participate in employee retirement and welfare benefit plans and programs of the type made available to our most senior executives.

In addition, Mr. Jacobs is entitled, subject to his continued employment with the Company, to the fringe benefits and perquisites to which he was entitled as of March 9, 2016. The retention agreement with Mr. Bucaille also provides that he is entitled to certain housing and tuition reimbursements (and related tax gross-ups) through December 31, 2016. Such reimbursements were discontinued in respect of 2017 and subsequent years.

Payments and Benefits Upon Certain Terminations of Service. The retention agreements with our NEOs also provide for certain severance benefits in the event of a termination by us other than for “cause” or by the NEO for “good reason” (which we refer to below as a “qualifying termination”) prior to the expiration of the retention agreement. See “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control” below for further details.

OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT 2017 FISCAL YEAR-END

The following table provides information about the number and value of RSUs, PRSUs and shares of restricted stock that were actually held (or, pursuant to the rules and guidance of the SEC, were for purposes of the table deemed held) by our NEOs as of December 31, 2017. The market value of the RSUs, PRSUs and restricted stock was calculated based on the NYSE closing price of our Class A common stock on December 31, 2017 ($52.50). The table does not include PRSU awards that relate to 2017 performance, which were granted in February 2018. Except for Mr. Russo, whose term as Chief Financial Officer began on October 1, 2017, our NEOs were not granted any RSUs that relate to 2017 performance.

75

In addition, with respect to (i) PRSU awards granted in February 2016 (in respect of 2015 compensation), in early 2017, the Compensation Committee determined that Lazard had achieved an aggregate score of at least 1.0 with respect to the 2016 fiscal year, and (ii) PRSU awards granted in February 2016 and February 2017 (in respect of 2015 and 2016 compensation, respectively), in early 2018, the Compensation Committee determined that Lazard had achieved an aggregate score of at least 1.0 with respect to the 2017 fiscal year. As discussed above under “Compensation Discussion & Analysis—PRSU Financial Metrics—PRSU Scoring”, if the Compensation Committee determines after the end of a fiscal year that the Company has achieved an aggregate score of at least 1.0 with respect to such fiscal year, then 25% of the total target number of shares of Class A common stock subject to the relevant PRSUs will no longer be at risk based on achievement of the performance criteria. Accordingly, this column includes 50% and 25% of the total target number of shares of our Class A common stock subject to the PRSU awards granted in February 2016 and February 2017, respectively (excluding, in the case of Messrs. Jacobs, Bhutani and Bucaille, shares of restricted stock that were available or withheld to pay related taxes, as further discussed under “Stock Vested” below), which, in each case, are no longer at risk based on achievement of the performance criteria and are scheduled to vest subject to service criteria on or around March 1, 2019 and March 2, 2020, respectively. The total number of RSUs and shares of restricted stock included in this column for each NEO that relate to PRSU awards granted in February 2016 and February 2017 (excluding, in the case of Messrs. Jacobs, Bhutani and Bucaille, shares of restricted stock that were available or withheld to pay related taxes, as further discussed under “Stock Vested” below) is as follows: for Mr. Jacobs, 95,249 and 42,673 in respect of PRSUs granted in 2016 and 2017, respectively; for Mr. Bhutani, 62,928 and 29,606 in respect of PRSUs granted in 2016 and 2017, respectively; for Mr. Hoffman, 45,378 and 16,977 in respect of PRSUs granted in 2016 and 2017,

76

respectively; for Mr. Stern, 80,998 and 30,503 in respect of PRSUs granted in 2016 and 2017, respectively; and for Mr. Bucaille, 29,069 and 14,207 in respect of PRSUs granted in 2016 and 2017, respectively. All such amounts are deemed RSUs (or, in the case of Messrs. Jacobs, Bhutani and Bucaille, shares of restricted stock, as further discussed in footnote (3) below), that have not vested for purposes of this table. This column also includes 82,948 shares of restricted stock held by Mr. Bucaille that relate to a special retention award granted to him in 2011 that are scheduled to vest on or around March 1, 2019.

77

STOCK VESTED

The following table sets forth certain information concerning PRSUs, RSUs and restricted stock held by our NEOs that vested in 2017.