Vault Rankings Forum

[rambleon65]

I'm just trying to get a sense of what Vault Rankings exactly correlates to. I understand it's based on this ambiguous concept of "prestigiousness", but what kind of tangible results differ based on the rankings? Presumably, higher the V ranking, the better lateral mobility--is this true? Anything else? Thanks.

[TooOld4This]

Vault rankings correlate to the opinions of a self-selecting group of associates at whatever moment of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the profession they have at the moment they decide to kill a few minutes of down time by filling out the survey.

[wiz]

Vault rankings correlate to the opinions of a self-selecting group of associates at whatever moment of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the profession they have at the moment they decide to kill a few minutes of down time by filling out the survey.

This, plus they're pretty NY-skewed because a large portion of the self-selecting group works in NYC.

[rambleon65]

To add to original posting and comments above, should vault rankings be ANY part of the decision making?

[2014]

Vault is a reasonable proxy for chambers bands which are more informative but you can't get bogged down in Vault minutiae. Caveat that I'm still in school, but I haven't seen or heard any indication that some lateral opportunity is going to ding you solely because you worked as an M&A attorney at Deb which is band 2 instead of Simpson which is band 1, it's probably the same shit.

Once you go down the Vault list firms either don't have practice groups or they have practice groups that aren't "good" as evaluated by Chambers, and then Vault might "matter" but it's a correlation causation thing. Some V50 firms have great practice groups in certain areas while some V10s have glaring weaknesses in others. Once you get outside of NYC it's even less useful too.

[09042014]

Vault is a reasonable proxy for chambers bands which are more informative but you can't get bogged down in Vault minutiae. Caveat that I'm still in school, but I haven't seen or heard any indication that some lateral opportunity is going to ding you solely because you worked as an M&A attorney at Deb which is band 2 instead of Simpson which is band 1, it's probably the same shit.

Once you go down the Vault list firms either don't have practice groups or they have practice groups that aren't "good" as evaluated by Chambers, and then Vault might "matter" but it's a correlation causation thing. Some V50 firms have great practice groups in certain areas while some V10s have glaring weaknesses in others. Once you get outside of NYC it's even less useful too.

Why would you need a proxy for something that you can just as easily look up. Also, Vault isn't even a reasonable proxy for Chambers.

[2014]

Idk some kid with a lot of time on his hands made up some formula that averaged chambers bands of big practice areas and the list looked pretty similar to Vault at least for NY firms, but I agree with just going to chambers instead of relying on a prestige survey.

[Anonymous User]

Idk some kid with a lot of time on his hands made up some formula that averaged chambers bands of big practice areas and the list looked pretty similar to Vault at least for NY firms, but I agree with just going to chambers instead of relying on a prestige survey.

For reference, that Chambers bands post is copied below.

These rankings are all dumb and pointless.

Agreed. Most rankings above save for itbvdorm's have boiled down to "well I always thought it was [X vault-based ranking, Y vault-based ranking]." itbvdorm's is probably the closest to the correct response since all of these firms are particularly well respected in these practice areas.

That said, I resisted the urge to provide my own set of rankings based on perceived prestige and instead quickly threw together a trio of tables that rank the V15 firms with a substantial NYC/corporate presence based on their Chambers nationwide rankings*. There are 12 firms that generally fall into that category: Wachtell, Cravath, S&C, Skadden, DPW, Weil, STB, Cleary, Kirkland, Latham, Debevoise, and Paul Weiss.

These tables are hardly a definitive set of rankings, but they are hopefully a little more concrete than the "I thought X firm is the best . . ." approach that these threads tend to evoke. Chambers practice group rankings are generally recognized as a better metric for evaluating the strengths of particular practice groups than Vault's prestige-based rankings, yet Chambers rankings have typically been considered only in isolation without considering what the full set of rankings say about particular firms. These tables are an imperfect stab at (1) putting these puzzle pieces together to paint a larger picture for each of these firms through the "Average Band" rankings (lower is better) and (2) putting firms' practice group rankings side-by-side so it's easier to consider firms' relative strengths and weaknesses in relation to their peers. Of course, it should be stated again that the difference between "Band 1" and "Band 2" or "Band 3" is very small and generally has minimal impact (if any) on the day-to-day opportunities of your average associate at any of these firms.

Table #1: This table includes all of Chambers' nationwide rankings in which at least two-thirds (8+ of 12) of the firms are ranked. The goal was to include practice areas that are widely participated in by NYC-based firms without arbitrarily including smaller, niche practices that might work in favor of or against certain firms. Firms that do not have a particular practice area are not impacted positively or negatively, and the total number of ranked areas is also noted as a very rough indicator of the breadth of each firm's practices. Not surprisingly, a firm like Wachtell has a more narrow range of practice area rankings than, for example, Skadden.



Table #2: This table includes only transactional-based practice groups from the larger subset included in Table #1. Bankruptcy may be something of an outlier given its hybrid corporate/litigation nature, but it includes enough transactional work that it seemed reasonable to include it here.



Table #3: This table includes only what others in this thread have termed the "bread-and-butter" corporate practice groups: M&A, Capital Markets, and Banking & Finance.



As stated above, these rankings do not paint a full picture and inevitably fail to account for nuances between the firms, particularly small practice-area specialities. My hope is that they will nonetheless provide a high-level overview of the strengths of firms that benefits from the quality of Chambers' individual rankings without succumbing to the circularity of the Vault rankings.

*These numbers are from Chambers USA 2013. For more information on Chambers' rankings, see: http://www.chambersandpartners.com

[20141023]

.

[JusticeHarlan]

This is something that I've wondered for a while now, but how the hell does an attorney who is working at one firm have any idea how "prestigious" other firms are? For the Vault survey, associates "were asked to ignore any firm with which they were unfamiliar and were not allowed to rank their own firm (LinkRemoved)"... but how does one know how prestigious another firm is unless they've worked there before? Also, it appear as though there aren't even criteria for determining prestige, such as, "How interesting is the work?", etc. Instead, the survey merely "asked attorneys to score each of the law firms on a scale of 1 to 10 based on how prestigious it is to work for the firm. (LinkRemoved)"

It boggles my mind how something like the Vault rankings ever became the thing that people use to talk about law firms (for example, V5, V15, V50, etc.). Then again, things like prestige reside where people believe they reside, so anyone who has ever seen the Vault rankings is probably affected by its influence because it indicates which firms their predecessors thought were prestigious.

There was a brief discussion about how stupid the survey was in the graduates-only forum, when some of us were complaining about filling it out. It's just as much of a joke as you imagine it would be.

[rad lulz]

Did you really have to be anon to ask this

[Renzo]

Here's how I fill out the Vault survey:

First, I answer a bunch of questions about my firm. Then, right about the time I am losing interest, it gives me a gigantic fucking list of firms to rate zero to ten based on whatever the fuck criteria I feel like using. For me, ten means I wanted to work there when I was a 2L and they didn't hire me. Nine means I know someone I really like who works there. Eight is a firm I have worked on a matter with and liked my counterpart. Seven means I would not be ashamed to work there. Six means I've heard of it before. The rest get N/A. Oh, and sometimes I get bored and just stop rating firms and hit submit.

Obviously this is very useful data. If you like, you can cut out the middle man, and send me a list of firms you want ranked. I will spend literally no effort, and send you back a precise Vault-style ranking custom tailored for you.

[20141023]

.

[rambleon65]

Thanks for the answers--hadn't meant to post this anonymously. It's absurd that, then, V5, V50, or V100 are even words people use. I know it's probably due to lack of an alternative, but it really is ridiculous.

[rad lulz]

d

[rpupkin]

Thanks for the answers--hadn't meant to post this anonymously. It's absurd that, then, V5, V50, or V100 are even words people use. I know it's probably due to lack of an alternative, but it really is ridiculous.

It's usually people who don't know what they're talking about or people who want to impress people who don't know what they're talking about

I know a litigation-focused guy who turned down an SA offer from Munger in favor of Skadden LA. His reason? Yep, Skadden was a "V5" firm, whereas Munger was ranked in the 30s. He deserves his misery.

[rad lulz]

d

[20141023]

.

[NotMyRealName09]

It's all an inclusive circle-jerk, and those who tell you otherwise either weren't invited to the party or haven't cum yet.

[NotMyRealName09]

Idk some kid with a lot of time on his hands made up some formula that averaged chambers bands of big practice areas and the list looked pretty similar to Vault at least for NY firms, but I agree with just going to chambers instead of relying on a prestige survey.

For reference, that Chambers bands post is copied below.

These rankings are all dumb and pointless.

Agreed. Most rankings above save for itbvdorm's have boiled down to "well I always thought it was [X vault-based ranking, Y vault-based ranking]." itbvdorm's is probably the closest to the correct response since all of these firms are particularly well respected in these practice areas.

That said, I resisted the urge to provide my own set of rankings based on perceived prestige and instead quickly threw together a trio of tables that rank the V15 firms with a substantial NYC/corporate presence based on their Chambers nationwide rankings*. There are 12 firms that generally fall into that category: Wachtell, Cravath, S&C, Skadden, DPW, Weil, STB, Cleary, Kirkland, Latham, Debevoise, and Paul Weiss.

These tables are hardly a definitive set of rankings, but they are hopefully a little more concrete than the "I thought X firm is the best . . ." approach that these threads tend to evoke. Chambers practice group rankings are generally recognized as a better metric for evaluating the strengths of particular practice groups than Vault's prestige-based rankings, yet Chambers rankings have typically been considered only in isolation without considering what the full set of rankings say about particular firms. These tables are an imperfect stab at (1) putting these puzzle pieces together to paint a larger picture for each of these firms through the "Average Band" rankings (lower is better) and (2) putting firms' practice group rankings side-by-side so it's easier to consider firms' relative strengths and weaknesses in relation to their peers. Of course, it should be stated again that the difference between "Band 1" and "Band 2" or "Band 3" is very small and generally has minimal impact (if any) on the day-to-day opportunities of your average associate at any of these firms.

Table #1: This table includes all of Chambers' nationwide rankings in which at least two-thirds (8+ of 12) of the firms are ranked. The goal was to include practice areas that are widely participated in by NYC-based firms without arbitrarily including smaller, niche practices that might work in favor of or against certain firms. Firms that do not have a particular practice area are not impacted positively or negatively, and the total number of ranked areas is also noted as a very rough indicator of the breadth of each firm's practices. Not surprisingly, a firm like Wachtell has a more narrow range of practice area rankings than, for example, Skadden.



Table #2: This table includes only transactional-based practice groups from the larger subset included in Table #1. Bankruptcy may be something of an outlier given its hybrid corporate/litigation nature, but it includes enough transactional work that it seemed reasonable to include it here.



Table #3: This table includes only what others in this thread have termed the "bread-and-butter" corporate practice groups: M&A, Capital Markets, and Banking & Finance.



As stated above, these rankings do not paint a full picture and inevitably fail to account for nuances between the firms, particularly small practice-area specialities. My hope is that they will nonetheless provide a high-level overview of the strengths of firms that benefits from the quality of Chambers' individual rankings without succumbing to the circularity of the Vault rankings.

*These numbers are from Chambers USA 2013. For more information on Chambers' rankings, see: http://www.chambersandpartners.com

This bullshit ignore the dynamic nature of business and the practice of law. It's like picking a march madness bracket - you can make an informed decision based on all the communal commentary, but until two teams go head to head in battle, it's just a bunch of partisans yelling about why they are right.

Prestige only matters to the prestigious I guess, who deflect glares of contempt by fixing their eyes on the next tier.

Grass is always greener, money doesn't buy happiness, yada yada

[rambleon65]

It's all an inclusive circle-jerk, and those who tell you otherwise either weren't invited to the party or haven't cum yet.

hahahaha

[parkslope]

Idk some kid with a lot of time on his hands made up some formula that averaged chambers bands of big practice areas and the list looked pretty similar to Vault at least for NY firms, but I agree with just going to chambers instead of relying on a prestige survey.

For reference, that Chambers bands post is copied below.

These rankings are all dumb and pointless.

Agreed. Most rankings above save for itbvdorm's have boiled down to "well I always thought it was [X vault-based ranking, Y vault-based ranking]." itbvdorm's is probably the closest to the correct response since all of these firms are particularly well respected in these practice areas.

That said, I resisted the urge to provide my own set of rankings based on perceived prestige and instead quickly threw together a trio of tables that rank the V15 firms with a substantial NYC/corporate presence based on their Chambers nationwide rankings*. There are 12 firms that generally fall into that category: Wachtell, Cravath, S&C, Skadden, DPW, Weil, STB, Cleary, Kirkland, Latham, Debevoise, and Paul Weiss.

These tables are hardly a definitive set of rankings, but they are hopefully a little more concrete than the "I thought X firm is the best . . ." approach that these threads tend to evoke. Chambers practice group rankings are generally recognized as a better metric for evaluating the strengths of particular practice groups than Vault's prestige-based rankings, yet Chambers rankings have typically been considered only in isolation without considering what the full set of rankings say about particular firms. These tables are an imperfect stab at (1) putting these puzzle pieces together to paint a larger picture for each of these firms through the "Average Band" rankings (lower is better) and (2) putting firms' practice group rankings side-by-side so it's easier to consider firms' relative strengths and weaknesses in relation to their peers. Of course, it should be stated again that the difference between "Band 1" and "Band 2" or "Band 3" is very small and generally has minimal impact (if any) on the day-to-day opportunities of your average associate at any of these firms.

Table #1: This table includes all of Chambers' nationwide rankings in which at least two-thirds (8+ of 12) of the firms are ranked. The goal was to include practice areas that are widely participated in by NYC-based firms without arbitrarily including smaller, niche practices that might work in favor of or against certain firms. Firms that do not have a particular practice area are not impacted positively or negatively, and the total number of ranked areas is also noted as a very rough indicator of the breadth of each firm's practices. Not surprisingly, a firm like Wachtell has a more narrow range of practice area rankings than, for example, Skadden.



Table #2: This table includes only transactional-based practice groups from the larger subset included in Table #1. Bankruptcy may be something of an outlier given its hybrid corporate/litigation nature, but it includes enough transactional work that it seemed reasonable to include it here.



Table #3: This table includes only what others in this thread have termed the "bread-and-butter" corporate practice groups: M&A, Capital Markets, and Banking & Finance.



As stated above, these rankings do not paint a full picture and inevitably fail to account for nuances between the firms, particularly small practice-area specialities. My hope is that they will nonetheless provide a high-level overview of the strengths of firms that benefits from the quality of Chambers' individual rankings without succumbing to the circularity of the Vault rankings.

*These numbers are from Chambers USA 2013. For more information on Chambers' rankings, see: http://www.chambersandpartners.com

This bullshit ignore the dynamic nature of business and the practice of law. It's like picking a march madness bracket - you can make an informed decision based on all the communal commentary, but until two teams go head to head in battle, it's just a bunch of partisans yelling about why they are right.

Prestige only matters to the prestigious I guess, who deflect glares of contempt by fixing their eyes on the next tier.

Grass is always greener, money doesn't buy happiness, yada yada

These tables are egregious STB trolling.

[KidStuddi]

These tables are egregious STB trolling.

Not sure you know what trolling means?
Anyhow, Vault rankings are pretty dumb, but these charts do seem to lend credence to the "V5+STB" shorthand that used to be a thing around here.

[rpupkin]

These tables are egregious STB trolling.

Not sure you know what trolling means?
Anyhow, Vault rankings are pretty dumb, but these charts do seem to lend credence to the "V5+STB" shorthand that used to be a thing around here.

What's STB?

[rad lulz]

d