SLS_AMG wrote:The Vault rankings have always been of dubious import, but they've truly outlived their usefulness with the publication of this list. Latham a top-5 firm?! Kirkland at 6?! The idea that either of those firms is "more prestigious" than Davis Polk, Simpson Thacher or Cleary Gottlieb is preposterous, unless prestige is somehow an analog for lower hiring standards, lower billable rates and lower desirability among recruits.
It's truly asinine that the critical mass of idiots voting in this poll have come to view having 1 billion offices, 2 billion lawyers and $10 billion in revenue as some measure of prestige, when by most any rational person's standards such levels of ubiquity and accessibility would indicate the opposite. I guess Latham, Kirkland and Skadden can continue their inexorable marches to the top of these farcical rankings. CSM, S&C, DPW, STB and CGSH will continue to fight over law school students, and I suppose LW, K&E and Skadden will continue fighting over their leftovers, regardless of what Vault says.
A few thoughts to really get the kicking and screaming going:
First, prestige is in the eyes of the beholder. You can call yourself prestigious all day and all night, but if the world doesn't see you that way then you are just defining it differently. It shouldn't be that surprising that elite firms with a more visible global presence are becoming viewed as more prestigious. They perform well in a larger number of markets, so they get brand recognition from more lawyers that is reflected in the Vault rankings. The risers are also more profitable on a per partner basis and pay above market bonuses, which seem like relevant data points to distinguish between them and behemoth McDonald's style firms.
Second, a ranking is only a gauge for what it purports to measure. The Vault rankings are a guide to the pecking order of "prestige" based on surveys of law firm associates. Whether the traditional Wall Street firms are still viewed as the most prestigious on those terms is really up to those associates, regardless of if DPW or anyone else wants to accept it. In my opinion the whole concept is garbage - having worked at a few V-10 firms I see the world in terms of "elite" firms and all the rest (which firms are in the former category is debatable, but my view is that you know one when you see it). That said, my view does not change the results of a Vault survey.
Third, "prestige" does not equal selectivity. The former is subjective and illusory, while the latter is objectively measurable. If these were rankings based on selectivity the top 10 would look significantly different - and I am pretty sure any firm with a big incoming class (including DPW, STB, etc.) would sit behind the above market paying Wachtells and litigation shops of the world.
Fourth, while any given year's Vault rankings may not be that definitive (does 4 vs. 6 really matter in terms of quality of experience or exit options), they do show trends over time that are worth noting. Shearman & Sterling's ongoing fall from the ranks of the elite comes to mind. 20 years ago one may have questioned whether they should be number 8 or number 12, but today there is little question that S&S is not the firm it was 20 years ago. The trend I'm seeing today is not a cataclysmic fall of DPW, it is that LW and K&E continue to rise. Whether that trend continues remains to be seen, but it does not suggest to me in the slightest that anything has changed at DPW.
Finally, completely agree that students shouldn't be making decisions based on Vault rankings. Other than helping identify the top 10 to 15 firms for students that have no idea what they are looking for other than a solid start to their career they are just a useless medium for self-gratification (and a useful way to tick off DPW associates apparently).
