Why do firm rankings matter? Forum

[romothesavior]

5) job security(not buying it--the firms with the most layoffs were generally the high ranking firms)

Not that I get tremendous satisfaction in saying, "no, you're wrong", but no, you're wrong.

Don't lie miamiman. You get tremendous satisfaction out of telling people they're wrong.

[miamiman]

5) job security(not buying it--the firms with the most layoffs were generally the high ranking firms)

Not that I get tremendous satisfaction in saying, "no, you're wrong", but no, you're wrong.

Don't lie miamiman. You get tremendous satisfaction out of telling people they're wrong.

Caught in the lie.

[como]

Law firm rankings matter because they are a proxy for law firm prestige. Law firm prestige matters because these are SERVICE providers. I know it is easy to forget, but being a lawyer entails providing a service for a client. The services are very generally speaking the same, but some people are much better than others OR some firms have well-established relationships with clients who believe that they are getting better bang for their buck.

It's that simple.

Top firms have top clients who believe they are getting top legal services. More work is therefore given to these firms, their lawyers make money, but more importantly, they stay employed. Look at how many lawyers were let go at Wachtell..

Great answer. I just cringe at the word "prestige"

Yea, it is a lame word. Let's say "solid business reputation."

[Tammygrams]

Law firm rankings matter because they are a proxy for law firm prestige. Law firm prestige matters because these are SERVICE providers. I know it is easy to forget, but being a lawyer entails providing a service for a client. The services are very generally speaking the same, but some people are much better than others OR some firms have well-established relationships with clients who believe that they are getting better bang for their buck.

It's that simple.

Top firms have top clients who believe they are getting top legal services. More work is therefore given to these firms, their lawyers make money, but more importantly, they stay employed. Look at how many lawyers were let go at Wachtell..

Except that clients are more concerned in this day and age with what lawyer they hired, not what law firm they hired.

[como]

Law firm rankings matter because they are a proxy for law firm prestige. Law firm prestige matters because these are SERVICE providers. I know it is easy to forget, but being a lawyer entails providing a service for a client. The services are very generally speaking the same, but some people are much better than others OR some firms have well-established relationships with clients who believe that they are getting better bang for their buck.

It's that simple.

Top firms have top clients who believe they are getting top legal services. More work is therefore given to these firms, their lawyers make money, but more importantly, they stay employed. Look at how many lawyers were let go at Wachtell..

Except that clients are more concerned in this day and age with what lawyer they hired, not what law firm they hired.

I don't see how that undercuts what I've written. The lawyer works for a law firm, no? That lawyer, by bringing in a client, brings his or her law firm money and business. The corollary is that the law firm grows financially and reputationally.

Obviously law firms are only as good as the lawyers they hire. That point just complements what I've said about law being a service industry.

[miamiman]

Your 2011 Vault Rankings:

http://www.vault.com/wps/portal/usa/ran ... regionId=0

[paratactical]

.

[dresden doll]

On the most basic of levels, firm rankings matter because they correlate with job security and exit options. You can parrot the 'I-am-not-obsessed-with-prestige' trumpet all you want but if you don't care about 1) job security and 2) exit options, you are insane.

[D-ROCCA]

Your 2011 Vault Rankings:

http://www.vault.com/wps/portal/usa/ran ... regionId=0

Anyone curious why Hogan & Hartson dropped out of the Vault 25 after they merged with Lovells? I'm thinking about the DC area, and it seems like the oldest, biggest firm in DC would have more prestige/clout.

[Hitachi]

On the most basic of levels, firm rankings matter because they correlate with job security and exit options. You can parrot the 'I-am-not-obsessed-with-prestige' trumpet all you want but if you don't care about 1) job security and 2) exit options, you are insane.

Rankings are decently correlated with that for New York offices of New York firms, I guess.

[nigelfrost]

On the most basic of levels, firm rankings matter because they correlate with job security and exit options. You can parrot the 'I-am-not-obsessed-with-prestige' trumpet all you want but if you don't care about 1) job security and 2) exit options, you are insane.

Dresden, I tried this line of thinking earlier today with this group. It went nowhere. 0Ls = happily deluded.

[Tammygrams]

Except that clients are more concerned in this day and age with what lawyer they hired, not what law firm they hired.

Um, I dunno about that. Maybe Joe Schmo goes by the shit on a shingle guy he thinks is good but "prestigious" buisnesses want "prestigious" law firms.

/shrug
That was straight out of the mouth of a partner at a large firm in my area

I mean, if a partner from a 'prestigious' lawfirm left to make his own firm, all his clients would follow him, and even though this new firm is essentially unknown, if he is good enough he will continue to draw his own business. With the proliferation of websites that rank lawyers by practice area this phenomenon will only grow.

[miamiman]

On the most basic of levels, firm rankings matter because they correlate with job security and exit options. You can parrot the 'I-am-not-obsessed-with-prestige' trumpet all you want but if you don't care about 1) job security and 2) exit options, you are insane.

Dresden, I tried this line of thinking earlier today with this group. It went nowhere. 0Ls = happily deluded.

No, you didn't. You said the following:

It's just another layer of the law school/lawyer heirarchy. You were filtered with your LSAT and GPA into a school that "matched your potential." You were compartmentalized by grades attached to a handful of end-of-semester tests and competitions like Moot Court and Law Review. Then, when it's time to find a job (after only your first year, mind you) you're further "ranked" by whether a "prestigious" firm is willing to reach down it's conciliatory hand, pull your grateful ass up out of the taint of law school, and give you the "opportunity" to do 2200 billable hours in exchange for cash.

Nowhere in your line of argumentation do you reference either job security or exit options which were two of the 5 considerations I raised in my reply.

[como]

Except that clients are more concerned in this day and age with what lawyer they hired, not what law firm they hired.

Um, I dunno about that. Maybe Joe Schmo goes by the shit on a shingle guy he thinks is good but "prestigious" buisnesses want "prestigious" law firms.

/shrug
That was straight out of the mouth of a partner at a large firm in my area

I mean, if a partner from a 'prestigious' lawfirm left to make his own firm, all his clients would follow him, and even though this new firm is essentially unknown, if he is good enough he will continue to draw his own business. With the proliferation of websites that rank lawyers by practice area this phenomenon will only grow.

That's not necessarily true. Businesses (smart businesses, at least) would wonder whether this all-star attorney would be able to make the same kind of magic they need without the resources of the firm she left behind.

[dresden doll]

On the most basic of levels, firm rankings matter because they correlate with job security and exit options. You can parrot the 'I-am-not-obsessed-with-prestige' trumpet all you want but if you don't care about 1) job security and 2) exit options, you are insane.

Dresden, I tried this line of thinking earlier today with this group. It went nowhere. 0Ls = happily deluded.

That hardly strikes me as a surprise.

Now, I'm open to evidence that said correlation is weak or does not exist. For as long as no one offers it, however, I will continue to characterize disregard for rankings as foolish.

[bk1]

Why is the OP anonymous??

Because of predictable responses like this:

hahaha... sorry for not providing any help at all, but your post is retarded. That's all.

I'm pretty sure being chickenshit is not a valid reason for posting anonymously. Grow a set and accept that certain things you post, even when looking for an honest answer, will get you mocked.

It's an internet forum, I'm so sorry that your reputation would be damaged by posting this question on your account that you would be shamed off of TLS.

[NYAssociate]

.

[dresden doll]

I'm pretty sure being chickenshit is not a valid reason for posting anonymously. Grow a set and accept that certain things you post, even when looking for an honest answer, will get you mocked.

It isn't. Posters are meant to take advantage of that function only when revealing sensitive employment data. Continuous abuse is really getting old.

[miamiman]

tbf, i dont know why people care

[bk1]

tbf, i dont know why people care

About people misusing anon?

Other than the fact that it is incredibly annoying, there are two reasons I see. One is that misusing it makes more work for the mods to deal with and I would not want to make extra work for them. And two, the fear that if it gets misused enough the mods will remove it so that they do not have to police it and thus remove a valuable tool for those who do wish to post sensitive data.

[clintonius]

tbf, i dont know why people care

About people misusing anon?

Other than the fact that it is incredibly annoying, there are two reasons I see. One is that misusing it makes more work for the mods to deal with and I would not want to make extra work for them. And two, the fear that if it gets misused enough the mods will remove it so that they do not have to police it and thus remove a valuable tool for those who do wish to post sensitive data.

Those two reasons are both just because someone has defined in the problem, not because there's a reason for the problem. I think a valid justification for strict enforcement of proper use of the anon feature is the slippery slope argument -- usage gets further and further from what was intended until it's just a bunch of anonymous douchebags trolling the place. Not that the mods would let that happen en masse (or that it doesn't happen occasionally anyways), but, y'know.

Also because it's incredibly annoying.

[bk1]

Those two reasons are both just because someone has defined in the problem, not because there's a reason for the problem. I think a valid justification for strict enforcement of proper use of the anon feature is the slippery slope argument -- usage gets further and further from what was intended until it's just a bunch of anonymous douchebags trolling the place. Not that the mods would let that happen en masse (or that it doesn't happen occasionally anyways), but, y'know.

Also because it's incredibly annoying.

I like people getting outed and then shamed for using the anon feature, it makes my day.

Sadly the people who do this are often people with sub-100 posts, not somebody like DF or Waterman or some other frequent poster who we could make fun of till the cows come home.

[clintonius]

Oh yes, shaming is the best. Fully agreed. Hehehe

[miamiman]

tbf, i dont know why people care

About people misusing anon?

Other than the fact that it is incredibly annoying, there are two reasons I see. One is that misusing it makes more work for the mods to deal with and I would not want to make extra work for them. And two, the fear that if it gets misused enough the mods will remove it so that they do not have to police it and thus remove a valuable tool for those who do wish to post sensitive data.

Those two reasons are both just because someone has defined in the problem, not because there's a reason for the problem. I think a valid justification for strict enforcement of proper use of the anon feature is the slippery slope argument -- usage gets further and further from what was intended until it's just a bunch of anonymous douchebags trolling the place. Not that the mods would let that happen en masse (or that it doesn't happen occasionally anyways), but, y'know.

Also because it's incredibly annoying.

I don't think we are or have ever been treading on slippery slope territory in this thread. The user anonymously inquired about the importance of rankings as they pertain to bigfirms, firms which admittedly are a rather objectively homogenous bunch. The user disclaimed his use of the anonymous feature by saying he believed not doing so would result in ridicule rather than constructive feedback. I don't think such a fear makes this user unique or crazy; I've at least once NOT posed a question on TLS I otherwise would have because of fear of reprisal.

We aren't talking about anonymous postings of porn or dead baby photos. People really need to chill out.

[clintonius]

tbf, i dont know why people care

About people misusing anon?

Other than the fact that it is incredibly annoying, there are two reasons I see. One is that misusing it makes more work for the mods to deal with and I would not want to make extra work for them. And two, the fear that if it gets misused enough the mods will remove it so that they do not have to police it and thus remove a valuable tool for those who do wish to post sensitive data.

Those two reasons are both just because someone has defined in the problem, not because there's a reason for the problem. I think a valid justification for strict enforcement of proper use of the anon feature is the slippery slope argument -- usage gets further and further from what was intended until it's just a bunch of anonymous douchebags trolling the place. Not that the mods would let that happen en masse (or that it doesn't happen occasionally anyways), but, y'know.

Also because it's incredibly annoying.

I don't think we are or have ever been treading on slippery slope territory in this thread. The user anonymously inquired about the importance of rankings as they pertain to bigfirms, firms which admittedly are a rather objectively homogenous bunch. The user disclaimed his use of the anonymous feature by saying he believed not doing so would result in ridicule rather than constructive feedback. I don't think such a fear makes this user unique or crazy; I've at least once NOT posed a question on TLS I otherwise would have because of fear of reprisal.

We aren't talking about anonymous postings of porn or dead baby photos. People really need to chill out.

I'm perfectly calm.

Calmer than you are.