LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
skri65
Posts: 484
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:07 pm

LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby skri65 » Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:09 pm

I wanted to see what the best schools to go to are if the goal is to work at law firm of 100+ lawyers or a federal clerkship. So I went to LSTSCOREREPORTS and took each schools percentage of the class who worked at a law firm of 100+ lawyers and then added this number to the percentage of the class who landed a federal clerkship. This gave me a final value. I then ranked the schools with respect to this final value and came up with the below rankings.

I thought it was also worth posting how overrated/underrated these schools were compared to their respective USNWR rankings, GIVEN THIS CRITERIA. This overrated/underrated value is given in the parenthesis. It is shocking to me how high the absolute value of some of these values in parenthesis are

Disclaimer: LSTSCOREREPORTS.com gets all the credit for the stats. I did the extra math in my head while at work, so the total values, or initial values for that matter, may be incorrect. If they are, I really don't care..again I was just messing around and figured I'd share it with you all. Additionally, these rankings only value placement into a large law firm and placement into federal clerkships. If you want to work at a small law firm, land a state/local clerkship, find PI work, or work in business, that's great and I don't mean to diminish your goals. These rankings will mean nothing to you and you can carry on. Furthermore, these rankings may not take into account this or that. Again, I didn't intend for these to be perfect or even valuable for anybody else for that matter.



School Name: (Percentage of Class in Law Firm of 100 or more lawyers) + (Percentage of Class in Federal Clerkship) = Final Value%

(in parenthesis is difference between this rank and its USNWR ranking)

1. Stanford: 49.5 + 23.4 = 72.9% (+1)
2. Columbia: 61.4 + 8.1 = 69.5% (+3)
3. UPenn: 58 + 9.1 = 67.1% (+4)
4. Yale: 33.2 + 33.2 = 66.4% (-3)
5. Harvard: 48.7 + 16.3 = 65% (-2)
6. NW: 53.3 + 8 = 61.3% (+6)
7. Duke: 44.9 + 11.1 = 56% (+4)
8. Chicago: 44.8 + 9.4 = 54.2% (-3)
9. NYU: 43.1 + 10.9 = 54% (-3)
10. UC Berkeley : 41.6 + 9.7 = 51.3% (-3)
11. UVA: 37.1 + 10.6: 47.7% (-4)
12. Cornell: 38.8 + 8 = 46.8% (+2)
13. UMICH: 34 + 10.6 = 44.6% (-3)
14. Vanderbilt: 30.3 + 10.1 = 40.4% (+2)
---------------------------------------
15. USC: 34.3 + 4.3 = 38.6% (+3)
16. Georgetown: 33.5 + 3.9 = 37.4% (-3)
17. UTEX: 23 + 7.1 = 30.1% (-1)
18. Boston College: 26 + 3.9 = 29.9% (+11) !
19. UCLA: 23.5 + 4.4 = 27.9% (-4)
20. Fordham: 24.8 + 2.3 = 27.1% (+9)
21. Emory: 18.7 + 6.7 = 25.4% (+3)
22. UND: 20 + 5.3 = 25.3% (0)
23. GW: 19.9 + 4.6 = 24.5% (-3)
24. BU: 19.8 + 1.8 = 21.6% (+2)
25. WUSL: 17.7 + 3.8 = 21.5% (-2)
26. W&L: 12.4 + 7.8 = 20.2% (-2)
27. Indian University: 13.8 + 4.6 = 18.4% (-1)
27. UIllinois: 13.7 + 4.7 = 18.4% (+8)
29. UAlabama: 9.8 + 8.5 = 18.3% (0)
30. OSU: 14.3 + 3.9 = 18.2% (+9) !
---------------------------------------
31. UNC: 13 + 4.5 = 17.5% (+7)
32. UMN: 12.3 + 4.2 = 16.5% (-13)!
33. UGA: 8.8 + 7.5 = 16.3% (+1)
34. WVU: 12.8 + 3.2 = 16% (+66+ TIER 3)!!!
35. SMU: 14 + 1.8 = 15.8% (+16)!
36. UWASH: 13.2 + 1.6 = 14.8% (-16)!
37. Cardozo: 11.8 + 2.9 = 14.7% (+19)!
38. W&M: 6.9 + 7.4 = 14.3% (-3)
39. UF: 11 + 3.2 = 14.2% (+9)
40. BYU: 10.8 + 2.7 = 13.5% (-1)
40. UHouston: 11.4 + 2.1 = 13.5% (+17)!
42. U Kentucky: 6.7 + 6.7 = 13.4% (+20)!
43. Case Western: 12.9 + 0.5 = 13.4% ( +24)!
43. UC Davis: 11.3 + 2.1 = 13.4% (-14)!
46. Wake Forest: 10.8 + 2.5 = 13.3% (-2)
47. Hastings: 10.9 + 1.9 = 12.8% (-3)
47. Temple: 9.7 + 3.1 = 12.8% (+11)!
49. Howard: 10.8 + 1.9 = 12.7% (+51+ TIER 3!)!!!
50. UCinc: 12.5 + 0 = 12.5% (+19)!
---------------------------------------------
51. Tulane: 7.9 + 3.7 = 11.6% (0)
52. U of Iowa: 7.7 + 3.8 = 11.5% (-23)
52. Villanova: 8.7 + 2.8 = 11.5% (+48+ TIER 3)
54. Cleveland Marshall: 10.8 + 0.5 = 11.3% (+46+ TIER 3)
55. URichmond: 7.2 + 3.6 = 10.8% (+3)
55. GSU: 8.1 + 2.7 = 10.8% (+3)
55. Loyola U Chicago: 9.2 + 1.6 = 10.8% (+12)
58. Brooklyn: 8.4 + 2.2 = 10.6% (+7)
59. UWisconsin: 9.8 + 1.6 = 10.4% (-24)
60. George Mason: 7.6 + 2.4 = 10% (-21)
61. American: 8.1 + 1.7 = 9.8% (-12)
61. UMD: 6.1 +3.7 = 9.8% (-22)
63. Loyola (LA): 7.4 + 2.2 = 9.6% (-12)
64. UCONN: 7.8 + 1.7 = 9.5% (-2)
65. USD: 6.9 + 2.5 = 9.4% (0)
66. FSU: 6.1 + 2.9 = 9% (-15)
67. U Colorado: 4.5 + 4 = 8.5% (-23)
68. UMiami: 7.8 + 0.3 = 8.1% (+1)
69. Seton Hall U: 5.5 + 2.5 = 8% (0)
70. Pepperdine: 5.2% + 2.6 = 7.8% (-21)
71. U of Arizona: 6.3 + 1.3 = 7.6% (-28)
72. ASU: 5 + 1.5 = 6.5% (-46)!
73. Baylor: 4.5 + 1.3 = 5.8% (-22)
74. ¬IIT (Chicago-Kent): 5.4 + 0.3 = 5.7% (-12)
75. U Denver: 4.5 + 0.7 = 5.2% (-6)
75. Utah: 4.5 + 0.7 = 5.2% (-28)
77. Lewis and Clark: 2.1 + 1.3 = 3.4% (-19)

Whoops: Hofstra = 5.8%

Edit: this definitely could have been created via excel. Oh well. I was bored.
Last edited by skri65 on Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
cahwc12
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby cahwc12 » Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:24 pm

Not to undermine your hard work, but you could have done this in a spreadsheet in less than two minutes using the ABA complete employment data spreadsheet available at http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/

Image

law2015
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 4:29 pm

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby law2015 » Fri Feb 01, 2013 8:26 pm

Skri65, you must be a 0L to write such a useless and dumb thread.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby dingbat » Fri Feb 01, 2013 8:35 pm

law2015 wrote:Skri65, you must be a 0L to write such a useless and dumb thread.

Don't be a dick. It's not useless. I think it's the most useful information available, but there isn't a single list. LST only counts full time JD required employment, without caring about quality. NLJ250 doesn't include federal clerkships (and only counts NLJ250 firms). This is important, don't belittle it.

cahwc12 wrote:Not to undermine your hard work, but you could have done this in a spreadsheet in less than two minutes using the ABA complete employment data spreadsheet available at http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/
If you could create a current version of the spreadsheet linked in this thread, I'm sure the mods will add the updated version to that sticky, and everyone who uses it will be very grateful

User avatar
El_Sol
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:00 pm

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby El_Sol » Fri Feb 01, 2013 8:40 pm

law2015 wrote:Skri65, you must be a 0L to write such a useless and dumb thread.


Disagree. Great thread!

User avatar
Crowing
Posts: 2636
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:20 pm

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby Crowing » Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:39 am

Imo looking at just one year's data is not extremely useful and you get a better overall picture if you look at say the past 3-5 years.

User avatar
suralin
better than you
Posts: 15025
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:52 am

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby suralin » Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:51 am

Crowing wrote:Imo looking at just one year's data is not extremely useful and you get a better overall picture if you look at say the past 3-5 years.


+1

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby dingbat » Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:31 am

Crowing wrote:Imo looking at just one year's data is not extremely useful and you get a better overall picture if you look at say the past 3-5 years.
I've looked at placement data as far back as 2005 (admittedly, more for curiosity; 2008 or older is irrelevant)

User avatar
manofjustice
Posts: 1323
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby manofjustice » Sat Feb 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Suralin wrote:
Crowing wrote:Imo looking at just one year's data is not extremely useful and you get a better overall picture if you look at say the past 3-5 years.


+1


+2

vzapana
Posts: 530
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:54 pm

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby vzapana » Sat Feb 02, 2013 12:34 pm

dingbat wrote:
Crowing wrote:Imo looking at just one year's data is not extremely useful and you get a better overall picture if you look at say the past 3-5 years.
I've looked at placement data as far back as 2005 (admittedly, more for curiosity; 2008 or older is irrelevant)


Did an analysis of T-14 schools. I couldn't find 2009 and older data for all the schools (Columbia started completing the NALP survey in 2010, for instance), so I stuck with 2010 and 2011 data only. It's a limited analysis because of this, so take it with a grain of salt.

To compare apples to apples, I looked at "long-term" employment with 101+ law firms and federal judges. I didn't look at simply FTLT (full-time, long-term) employment, because the 2010 NALP survey didn't require you to report that data. Nonetheless, the math doesn't change too much. Only two schools reported PTLT (part-time, long-term) employment: Georgetown and University of Virginia. And Gtown reported only 3, while UVA reported only 1.

I calculated the 2010 and 2011 employment ratios for each school, then I averaged the two values. Here are the results:

1.) Stanford: 77.3%
2.) Columbia: 74.1%
3.) Harvard: 68.9%
4.) Penn: 68.0%
5.) Cornell: 63.7%
6.) Chicago: 63.2%
7.) Yale: 62.9%
8.) Northwestern: 60.8%
9.) NYU: 60.4%
10.) Duke: 56.9%
11.) Berkeley: 54.9%
12.) Virginia: 54.4%
13.) Michigan: 52.7%
14.) Georgetown: 42.1% [YIKES]

I also calculated the percent change from the 2010 to the 2011 ratios. (Positive numbers are good; negative, bad.) This should give a sense of which schools have job numbers that are in free fall. Here are those results:

1.) Yale: 11.6%
2.) Northwestern: 1.6%
3.) Penn: -2.5%
4.) Duke: -3.0%
5.) Stanford: -10.7%
6.) Harvard: -10.7%
7.) Columbia: -11.6%
8.) Berkeley: -12.2%
9.) Michigan: -13.0%
10.) Georgetown: -18.3%
11.) NYU: -19.0%
12.) UVA: -20.9%
13.) U. Chicago: -25.1%
14.) Cornell: -42.1% [YIKES]

User avatar
RetakeFrenzy
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:41 am

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby RetakeFrenzy » Sat Feb 02, 2013 12:43 pm

Thanks for doing this!

The list just made me love BC even more :D

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby dingbat » Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:43 pm

vzapana wrote:
dingbat wrote:
Crowing wrote:Imo looking at just one year's data is not extremely useful and you get a better overall picture if you look at say the past 3-5 years.
I've looked at placement data as far back as 2005 (admittedly, more for curiosity; 2008 or older is irrelevant)


Did an analysis of T-14 schools. I couldn't find 2009 and older data for all the schools (Columbia started completing the NALP survey in 2010, for instance), so I stuck with 2010 and 2011 data only. It's a limited analysis because of this, so take it with a grain of salt.

To compare apples to apples, I looked at "long-term" employment with 101+ law firms and federal judges. I didn't look at simply FTLT (full-time, long-term) employment, because the 2010 NALP survey didn't require you to report that data. Nonetheless, the math doesn't change too much. Only two schools reported PTLT (part-time, long-term) employment: Georgetown and University of Virginia. And Gtown reported only 3, while UVA reported only 1.

I calculated the 2010 and 2011 employment ratios for each school, then I averaged the two values. Here are the results:

1.) Stanford: 77.3%
2.) Columbia: 74.1%
3.) Harvard: 68.9%
4.) Penn: 68.0%
5.) Cornell: 63.7%
6.) Chicago: 63.2%
7.) Yale: 62.9%
8.) Northwestern: 60.8%
9.) NYU: 60.4%
10.) Duke: 56.9%
11.) Berkeley: 54.9%
12.) Virginia: 54.4%
13.) Michigan: 52.7%
14.) Georgetown: 42.1% [YIKES]

I also calculated the percent change from the 2010 to the 2011 ratios. (Positive numbers are good; negative, bad.) This should give a sense of which schools have job numbers that are in free fall. Here are those results:

1.) Yale: 11.6%
2.) Northwestern: 1.6%
3.) Penn: -2.5%
4.) Duke: -3.0%
5.) Stanford: -10.7%
6.) Harvard: -10.7%
7.) Columbia: -11.6%
8.) Berkeley: -12.2%
9.) Michigan: -13.0%
10.) Georgetown: -18.3%
11.) NYU: -19.0%
12.) UVA: -20.9%
13.) U. Chicago: -25.1%
14.) Cornell: -42.1% [YIKES]

Cornell shows the problem with looking at only one year. They has a banner year in 2010, much better than usual.
I recommend looking at the NLJ250 goto list; it shouldn't be too hard to find the last 3-4 years and can go much further. It doesn't include federal clerkships, but can be used to determine how stable biglaw hiring is at a school (relative to each other)

User avatar
Spinoza
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:54 pm

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby Spinoza » Sat Feb 02, 2013 3:44 pm

law2015 wrote:Skri65, you must be a 0L to write such a useless and dumb thread.


Lol, what a retard. One of my favorite things is when people try to be authoritative and end up just embarrassing themselves. Whether this was a fail attempt at a troll or more straightforward failure, thank you Law2015 for entertaining me.

I wouldn't worry too much about not having PI and government stuff in there. For most schools it would not change how we view them, and for the others we know who they are (no one is worried that Yale students have less attractive job prospects from these numbers).

Also, in using this information, people should always keep in mind that differences in % employment between two schools might have very little impact on your chances of getting a job coming out of either school. If only 50% of students get good jobs coming out of School A and 70% get good jobs coming out of School B, school B is likely to be more competitive with more able students/job candidates. Accordingly, your own chance of getting a job is probably roughly similar at both schools. This is an oversimplification, to be sure, but no one is surprised when the kid who gives up an offer from Columbia to get a full ride at Duke ends up excelling there.

Big Dog
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby Big Dog » Sat Feb 02, 2013 3:50 pm

Great stuff, thank you.

My question has to do with the threshold of law firms 100+.

Another blog (and the National Law Journal) seems to indicate that Big Law = firms of NLJ 250+. Any thoughts on the difference? Are those from 100-250 just as good for salary/work experience?

Yes, I realize that the Law Journal excludes clerkships, which are hugely valuable.)

User avatar
Yukos
Posts: 1774
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:47 pm

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby Yukos » Sat Feb 02, 2013 4:26 pm

Spinoza wrote:
law2015 wrote:Skri65, you must be a 0L to write such a useless and dumb thread.


If only 50% of students get good jobs coming out of School A and 70% get good jobs coming out of School B, school B is likely to be more competitive with more able students/job candidates. Accordingly, your own chance of getting a job is probably roughly similar at both schools. This is an oversimplification, to be sure, but no one is surprised when the kid who gives up an offer from Columbia to get a full ride at Duke ends up excelling there.


This is a really dangerous assumption. Even if we assumed law school exams (EDIT: results) are not at all arbitrary (which we shouldn't), the different in credentials between most of the T14 is marginal. A student at Duke's LSAT median* of 170 and a student at Columbia's median of 172 would be in the same score band, meaning even LSAC would admit they're statistically more or less the same.

Moral of the story: if you're choosing between the T14, the percentage of students who get biglaw is much more important than the presumed difference in "intelligence" or "skill" between the students.

*Class of 2014 LSAT median because Duke hasn't released class of 2015 medians.
Last edited by Yukos on Sat Feb 02, 2013 4:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
suralin
better than you
Posts: 15025
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:52 am

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby suralin » Sat Feb 02, 2013 4:40 pm

Yukos wrote:
Spinoza wrote:
law2015 wrote:Skri65, you must be a 0L to write such a useless and dumb thread.


If only 50% of students get good jobs coming out of School A and 70% get good jobs coming out of School B, school B is likely to be more competitive with more able students/job candidates. Accordingly, your own chance of getting a job is probably roughly similar at both schools. This is an oversimplification, to be sure, but no one is surprised when the kid who gives up an offer from Columbia to get a full ride at Duke ends up excelling there.


This is a really dangerous assumption. Even if we assumed law school exams are not at all arbitrary (which we shouldn't), the different in credentials between most of the T14 is marginal. A student at Duke's LSAT median* of 170 and a student at Columbia's median of 172 would be in the same score band, meaning even LSAC would admit they're statistically the more or less the same.

Moral of the story: if you're choosing between the T14, the percentage of students who get biglaw is much more important than the presumed difference in "intelligence" or "skill" between the students.

*Class of 2014 LSAT median because Duke hasn't released class of 2015 medians.


+1

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15464
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:26 pm

Big Dog wrote:Great stuff, thank you.

My question has to do with the threshold of law firms 100+.

Another blog (and the National Law Journal) seems to indicate that Big Law = firms of NLJ 250+. Any thoughts on the difference? Are those from 100-250 just as good for salary/work experience?

Yes, I realize that the Law Journal excludes clerkships, which are hugely valuable.)

The NLJ 250 is the 250 biggest firms, the smallest of which has about 160 attorneys. The ABA collects data based on placement into firms of 100-250, 250-500, and 501+. Given this, the data from the NLJ 250 and the ABA data are hard to match up. It's generally assumed that most firms of greater than 100 attorneys pay well and even if they don't quite make the NLJ 250 are as good as the typical firm in the bottom of that list. This isn't always true, of course, but including the non-NLJ 250 firms of greater than 100+ lawyers in the list of good outcomes is a safer assumption than not including them. Having said that most T-14 schools place a very small percentage into firms of 100-250, so whether you include them or not doesn't make a big difference.

User avatar
Ruxin1
Posts: 1284
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:12 pm

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby Ruxin1 » Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:32 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
Big Dog wrote:Great stuff, thank you.

My question has to do with the threshold of law firms 100+.

Another blog (and the National Law Journal) seems to indicate that Big Law = firms of NLJ 250+. Any thoughts on the difference? Are those from 100-250 just as good for salary/work experience?

Yes, I realize that the Law Journal excludes clerkships, which are hugely valuable.)

The NLJ 250 is the 250 biggest firms, the smallest of which has about 160 attorneys. The ABA collects data based on placement into firms of 100-250, 250-500, and 501+. Given this, the data from the NLJ 250 and the ABA data are hard to match up. It's generally assumed that most firms of greater than 100 attorneys pay well and even if they don't quite make the NLJ 250 are as good as the typical firm in the bottom of that list. This isn't always true, of course, but including the non-NLJ 250 firms of greater than 100+ lawyers in the list of good outcomes is a safer assumption than not including them. Having said that most T-14 schools place a very small percentage into firms of 100-250, so whether you include them or not doesn't make a big difference.


I believe someone, Kurst? made a graph of the schools of 50+ with federal clerkships. Which I think is important because a lot of southern markets have solid, smaller firms.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15464
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:35 pm

Ruxin1 wrote:I believe someone, Kurst? made a graph of the schools of 50+ with federal clerkships. Which I think is important because a lot of southern markets have solid, smaller firms.


This spreadsheet was made for 2010:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub ... Bd3c&gid=2

Not sure if anyone has put together the equivalent for 2011.

User avatar
JO 14
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:01 pm

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby JO 14 » Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:36 pm

dingbat wrote: I've looked at placement data as far back as 2005 (admittedly, more for curiosity; 2008 2011 or older is irrelevant)

User avatar
Yukos
Posts: 1774
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:47 pm

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby Yukos » Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:37 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
Big Dog wrote:Great stuff, thank you.

My question has to do with the threshold of law firms 100+.

Another blog (and the National Law Journal) seems to indicate that Big Law = firms of NLJ 250+. Any thoughts on the difference? Are those from 100-250 just as good for salary/work experience?

Yes, I realize that the Law Journal excludes clerkships, which are hugely valuable.)

The NLJ 250 is the 250 biggest firms, the smallest of which has about 160 attorneys. The ABA collects data based on placement into firms of 100-250, 250-500, and 501+. Given this, the data from the NLJ 250 and the ABA data are hard to match up. It's generally assumed that most firms of greater than 100 attorneys pay well and even if they don't quite make the NLJ 250 are as good as the typical firm in the bottom of that list. This isn't always true, of course, but including the non-NLJ 250 firms of greater than 100+ lawyers in the list of good outcomes is a safer assumption than not including them. Having said that most T-14 schools place a very small percentage into firms of 100-250, so whether you include them or not doesn't make a big difference.


How does boutique placement fit into this? If you consider placement into all boutiques (many/most by definition excluded from these lists) would that include enough students to meaningfully change these stats? For Yale at least it seems like boutique placement would be noticeable.

(I realize it would be impossible to capture students going to boutiques in a table like this, I'm just wondering if the very top schools are being a little undersold)

User avatar
Ruxin1
Posts: 1284
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:12 pm

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby Ruxin1 » Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:38 pm

Yukos wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
Big Dog wrote:Great stuff, thank you.

My question has to do with the threshold of law firms 100+.

Another blog (and the National Law Journal) seems to indicate that Big Law = firms of NLJ 250+. Any thoughts on the difference? Are those from 100-250 just as good for salary/work experience?

Yes, I realize that the Law Journal excludes clerkships, which are hugely valuable.)

The NLJ 250 is the 250 biggest firms, the smallest of which has about 160 attorneys. The ABA collects data based on placement into firms of 100-250, 250-500, and 501+. Given this, the data from the NLJ 250 and the ABA data are hard to match up. It's generally assumed that most firms of greater than 100 attorneys pay well and even if they don't quite make the NLJ 250 are as good as the typical firm in the bottom of that list. This isn't always true, of course, but including the non-NLJ 250 firms of greater than 100+ lawyers in the list of good outcomes is a safer assumption than not including them. Having said that most T-14 schools place a very small percentage into firms of 100-250, so whether you include them or not doesn't make a big difference.


How does boutique placement fit into this? If you consider placement into all boutiques (many/most by definition excluded from these lists) would that include enough students to meaningfully change these stats? For Yale at least it seems like boutique placement would be noticeable.

(I realize it would be impossible to capture students going to boutiques in a table like this, I'm just wondering if the very top schools are being a little undersold)


Someone posted this in a UT thread how they get two or three students into Susman/Jenner/etc. every year, and they estimated would boost placement a few % points.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby dingbat » Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:39 pm

JO 14 wrote:
dingbat wrote: I've looked at placement data as far back as 2005 (admittedly, more for curiosity; 2008 2011 or older is irrelevant)

that's the dumbest thing i've heard - especially in light of the fact that class of 2012 data isn't available yet.

User avatar
JO 14
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:01 pm

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby JO 14 » Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:42 pm

If you like older stats, great. Tune into the history channel.

User avatar
Yukos
Posts: 1774
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:47 pm

Re: LS Rankings Based On 100+ Lawyer Firm Jobs & Fed Clerkship

Postby Yukos » Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:42 pm

JO 14 wrote:If you like older stats, great. Tune into the history channel.


Sick burn.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kitlena and 5 guests