Top Law Schools

Are these things even remotely legitimate? They just released their law firms of the year designations... seems to be similar criteria to Chambers.

Blindmelon wrote:Are these things even remotely legitimate? They just released their law firms of the year designations... seems to be similar criteria to Chambers.

Until they can identify what audience these rankings are intended to reach, they are (in my book) presumptively invalid and nothing more than a vehicle to sell ads for law firms. Vault tries to rank what matters to law students. Chambers tries to rank what matters to clients of large firms. Superlawyers ranks attorneys by willingness to pay to put their name in a magazine. I;m not sure where these think they fit in.

Renzo wrote:

Blindmelon wrote:Are these things even remotely legitimate? They just released their law firms of the year designations... seems to be similar criteria to Chambers.

Until they can identify what audience these rankings are intended to reach, they are (in my book) presumptively invalid and nothing more than a vehicle to sell ads for law firms. Vault tries to rank what matters to law students. Chambers tries to rank what matters to clients of large firms. Superlawyers ranks attorneys by willingness to pay to put their name in a magazine. I;m not sure where these think they fit in.

Yeah. I've been thumbing around through the IP-related rankings, and I'm thoroughly perplexed by the tiering and firms appearing in each tier.

Big Shrimpin wrote:

Renzo wrote:

Blindmelon wrote:Are these things even remotely legitimate? They just released their law firms of the year designations... seems to be similar criteria to Chambers.

Until they can identify what audience these rankings are intended to reach, they are (in my book) presumptively invalid and nothing more than a vehicle to sell ads for law firms. Vault tries to rank what matters to law students. Chambers tries to rank what matters to clients of large firms. Superlawyers ranks attorneys by willingness to pay to put their name in a magazine. I;m not sure where these think they fit in.

Yeah. I've been thumbing around through the IP-related rankings, and I'm thoroughly perplexed by the tiering and firms appearing in each tier.

I think USNWR is trying to be like Chambers (hence the bands rather than the linear style of Vault), but the methodology is weird and probably needs tweaking.

keg411 wrote:

Big Shrimpin wrote:

Renzo wrote:

Blindmelon wrote:Are these things even remotely legitimate? They just released their law firms of the year designations... seems to be similar criteria to Chambers.

Until they can identify what audience these rankings are intended to reach, they are (in my book) presumptively invalid and nothing more than a vehicle to sell ads for law firms. Vault tries to rank what matters to law students. Chambers tries to rank what matters to clients of large firms. Superlawyers ranks attorneys by willingness to pay to put their name in a magazine. I;m not sure where these think they fit in.

Yeah. I've been thumbing around through the IP-related rankings, and I'm thoroughly perplexed by the tiering and firms appearing in each tier.

I think USNWR is trying to be like Chambers (hence the bands rather than the linear style of Vault), but the methodology is weird and probably needs tweaking.

You mean a methodology that puts Bingham McCutchen first in every category isn't a good?

Renzo wrote:
You mean a methodology that puts Bingham McCutchen first in every category isn't a good?

You mean the methodology of organizing law firms by alphabetical order? How terribly unintuitive...

Master Tofu wrote:

Renzo wrote:
You mean a methodology that puts Bingham McCutchen first in every category isn't a good?

You mean the methodology of organizing law firms by alphabetical order? How terribly unintuitive...

Except it isn't. Well, it sort of is: it's alphabetical among firms that paid to be at the top of the list, then the alphabet starts over with the rest of the firms in that band that didn't shell out.

Renzo wrote:

Master Tofu wrote:

Renzo wrote:
You mean a methodology that puts Bingham McCutchen first in every category isn't a good?

You mean the methodology of organizing law firms by alphabetical order? How terribly unintuitive...

Except it isn't. Well, it sort of is: it's alphabetical among firms that paid to be at the top of the list, then the alphabet starts over with the rest of the firms in that band that didn't shell out.

To be fair, Bingham is arguably the 4th best firm in a secondary market... oh... yea.

Renzo wrote:

Master Tofu wrote:

Renzo wrote:
You mean a methodology that puts Bingham McCutchen first in every category isn't a good?

You mean the methodology of organizing law firms by alphabetical order? How terribly unintuitive...

Except it isn't. Well, it sort of is: it's alphabetical among firms that paid to be at the top of the list, then the alphabet starts over with the rest of the firms in that band that didn't shell out.

I don't really care who is on the top of the list. I am just curious what your basis is for criticizing this ranking? Link to page saying USNWR gets paid for ranking the firms (other than through sales)?

Master Tofu wrote:

Renzo wrote:

Master Tofu wrote:

Renzo wrote:
You mean a methodology that puts Bingham McCutchen first in every category isn't a good?

You mean the methodology of organizing law firms by alphabetical order? How terribly unintuitive...

Except it isn't. Well, it sort of is: it's alphabetical among firms that paid to be at the top of the list, then the alphabet starts over with the rest of the firms in that band that didn't shell out.

I don't really care who is on the top of the list. I am just curious what your basis is for criticizing this ranking? Link to page saying USNWR gets paid for ranking the firms (other than through sales)?

WTF are you talking about, other than sales? The "sell" priority listing in the ranking, and the "sell" firms the ability to have detailed profiles listed. That's why WilmerHale is listed ahead of Cravath in areas where they are ranked in the same band.

But, if that's not self apparent enough, you could click the huge fucking "marketing opportunities" link on the front page of their website and see all the ways they are willing to take money from firms.

They also have a link to their methodology that says

Of the 10,968 firms that were eligible to submit information for the ranking process, 9,633 firms, including a large, number of one-person firms, received rankings, and 6,983 of those firms received first tier national and/or metropolitan rankings.

So, 60% of all firms, including a large number of solo practitioners, are the best in their fields, and the best way to differentiate yourself inside that 60% is to buy an ad? Yeah, that seems legit.

Do you not often get challenged? What's with this anger? Chill out, internet tough guy.

So it does appear that the ordering of the firms is not alphabetical. It appeared to be when I clicked randomly on three different practice areas. Does the ordering matter to someone who is a client of a firm like WH or Cravath?

I don't care about the firm profile - it doesn't affect the ranking.

So you think they are overinclusive...according to whose standards?

Do you not often get challenged? What's with this anger? Chill out, internet tough guy.

CR

What is this I don't even

Master Tofu wrote:Do you not often get challenged? What's with this anger? Chill out, internet tough guy.

So it does appear that the ordering of the firms is not alphabetical. It appeared to be when I clicked randomly on three different practice areas. Does the ordering matter to someone who is a client of a firm like WH or Cravath?

I don't care about the firm profile - it doesn't affect the ranking.

So you think they are overinclusive...according to whose standards?

Naw, sorry. I didn't mean to sound so angry; I often come across as a jerk when I'm not careful.

I'm just saying that if 60% of all law firms are "top tier", then they aren't even really rankings;it's just a list of firms that do a certain kind of work in a certain region. And that's basically useless. Add to that uselessness the fact that the list is arranged by order of how much the firms were willing to pay to be at the top, then within that framework, alphabetically, and I can't see what possible value there could be in these "rankings."