Best and worst firm websites Forum

[2013]

Roberts & Holland. No competition.

[Anonymous User]

Roberts & Holland. No competition.

Just checked it out. It's not super fancy but I thought the navigation was pretty straightforward so I didn't mind. I personally give more weight to navigation, but I can also understand people who give more weight to aesthetics.

[avenuem]

Latham and DPW are def the worst. I also feel like Skadden thought they had a cool idea for their layout, but it's kind of dumb.

S&C, Simpson, and Debevoise all have pretty clean ones. W&C and Cleary have kinda unique ones too.

Is W&C used to refer to White & Case or Williams & Connolly?

Where context is ambiguous, the Bloobook uses W&C for Williams & Connolly and >W&C for White & Case. The implicatttion is clear. Just compare their websites.

[Anonymous User]

Regarding all the comments nominating Latham, their letters might as well start on the second page. Their letterhead lists their offices vertically.

(Anon because I'm probably the most vocal person annoyed by this, and it will instantly out me to many people.)

[SamuelDanforth]

I don't know if they've updated it, but the scroll bar on Quinn's website was truly infuriating. Trying to scroll down to find a specific attorney was a roll of the dice at best. And I agree that the search function on GDC's website can be tricky.

I think Keker has a nice website. As does Gunderson.

[Anonymous User]

Navigating the post-rebrand Milbank website is a bit tricky, but it looks really polished and clean now

[louislittmbajdesq]

Has someone mentioned Kellogg Hansen? The firm is as top flight as it gets, but its website looks like it was made on Publisher.

[Anonymous User]

Has someone mentioned Kellogg Hansen? The firm is as top flight as it gets, but its website looks like it was made on Publisher.

I personally really like Kellogg's website, along with more old-school ones like Cravath's and Wachtell's. I think their websites are wonderfully different from those of Cooley and Kirkland, which really just seem to copy the style of Big 4 and consulting firms. It sucks that law firms in general are evolving into massive professional services firms and corporations, in structure and management style, and how that's being reflected in the design of their websites, trying to rebrand themselves as "cool" and "modern." Pretty distasteful. It's almost like they know they need the visuals to attract eyeballs to get clients because their pure lawyering firepower isn't enough.

Like, just as a parallel, take a look at the websites of the super-elite investment banking firms. Centerview Partners' website is on par with those of undergrad finance clubs at some fancy colleges, while Robey Warshaw and LionTree Advisors both only have a freaking landing page, with no navigation at all lol.

I think that visual "restraint" is super elegant and powerful. These elite IBs, and law firms like Kellogg and Wachtell and Cravath, don't need to brand themselves and throw buzzwords and graphics of smiling people and big fonts in your face because they know they will be contacted for the best business anyways. Though I will say, if you're NOT Cravath or Kellogg, then yes, you probably need a more "cool" and "edgy" website LOL. Just my personal take

[Anonymous User]

Has someone mentioned Kellogg Hansen? The firm is as top flight as it gets, but its website looks like it was made on Publisher.

I personally really like Kellogg's website, along with more old-school ones like Cravath's and Wachtell's. I think their websites are wonderfully different from those of Cooley and Kirkland, which really just seem to copy the style of Big 4 and consulting firms. It sucks that law firms in general are trying to brand themselves into massive professional services firms and corporations, in structure and management style, and how that's being reflected in the design of their websites, trying to rebrand themselves as "cool" and "modern." Pretty distasteful. It's almost like they know they need the visual to attract eyeballs to get clients because their pure lawyering firepower isn't enough.

Like, just as a parallel, take a look at the websites of the super-elite investment banking firms. Centerview Partners' website is on par with those of undergrad finance clubs at some fancy colleges, while Robey Warshaw and LionTree Advisors both only have a freaking landing page, with no navigation at all lol.

I think that visual "restraint" is super elegant and powerful. These elite IBs, and law firms like Kellogg and Wachtell and Cravath, don't need to brand themselves and throw buzzwords and graphics of smiling people and big fonts in your face because they know they will be contacted for the best business anyways. Though I will say, if you're NOT Cravath or Kellogg, then yes, you probably need a more "cool" and "edgy" website LOL. Just my personal take

+1. I was surprised hearing about Jones Day earlier in the thread. I liked their old-school website before they switched to the modern website a few years ago. Now it looks just like any other biglaw's out there...

[Anonymous User]

Has someone mentioned Kellogg Hansen? The firm is as top flight as it gets, but its website looks like it was made on Publisher.

It sucks that law firms in general are trying to brand themselves into massive professional services firms and corporations, in structure and management style, and how that's being reflected in the design of their websites, trying to rebrand themselves as "cool" and "modern." It's almost like they know they need the visual to attract eyeballs to get clients because their pure lawyering firepower isn't enough.

A law firm is a [massive] professional services firm, isn't it? Law firm business is so competitive that I think most do look for any advantage they can get. A decent site also helps students that might not otherwise have real attorneys present in their lives connect with people. I also doubt that even v10 firms have the "pure lawyering firepower" that makes them so much more of an obvious choice for business than each other or the next 50 or 100 firms in the modern legal landscape.

I edit to add that I don't even think the website plays in to a clients decision much if at all. Though perhaps through the psychology of marketing it actually does if they're picking between a few.

[louislittmbajdesq]

Has someone mentioned Kellogg Hansen? The firm is as top flight as it gets, but its website looks like it was made on Publisher.

I personally really like Kellogg's website, along with more old-school ones like Cravath's and Wachtell's. I think their websites are wonderfully different from those of Cooley and Kirkland, which really just seem to copy the style of Big 4 and consulting firms. It sucks that law firms in general are evolving into massive professional services firms and corporations, in structure and management style, and how that's being reflected in the design of their websites, trying to rebrand themselves as "cool" and "modern." Pretty distasteful. It's almost like they know they need the visuals to attract eyeballs to get clients because their pure lawyering firepower isn't enough.

Like, just as a parallel, take a look at the websites of the super-elite investment banking firms. Centerview Partners' website is on par with those of undergrad finance clubs at some fancy colleges, while Robey Warshaw and LionTree Advisors both only have a freaking landing page, with no navigation at all lol.

I think that visual "restraint" is super elegant and powerful. These elite IBs, and law firms like Kellogg and Wachtell and Cravath, don't need to brand themselves and throw buzzwords and graphics of smiling people and big fonts in your face because they know they will be contacted for the best business anyways. Though I will say, if you're NOT Cravath or Kellogg, then yes, you probably need a more "cool" and "edgy" website LOL. Just my personal take

This is a good take. I agree with your overall point and loved the old Cravath website actually. I think you can do restrained with a classy look, Robey Warshaw's landing page. Kellogg has too strong of a high school web design club vibe for my subjective taste.

[Anonymous User]

Has someone mentioned Kellogg Hansen? The firm is as top flight as it gets, but its website looks like it was made on Publisher.

It sucks that law firms in general are trying to brand themselves into massive professional services firms and corporations, in structure and management style, and how that's being reflected in the design of their websites, trying to rebrand themselves as "cool" and "modern." It's almost like they know they need the visual to attract eyeballs to get clients because their pure lawyering firepower isn't enough.

A law firm is a [massive] professional services firm, isn't it? Law firm business is so competitive that I think most do look for any advantage they can get. A decent site also helps students that might not otherwise have real attorneys present in their lives connect with people. I also doubt that even v10 firms have the "pure lawyering firepower" that makes them so much more of an obvious choice for business than each other or the next 50 or 100 firms in the modern legal landscape.

I edit to add that I don't even think the website plays in to a clients decision much if at all. Though perhaps through the psychology of marketing it actually does if they're picking between a few.

Totally agree with you, which is why I had that last caveat lol. For the vast majority of firms, it's probably unfeasible to go the Kellogg route, with black and white photographs and zero stock images. Having worked at a Big 4/global consulting firm, I just really don't like the massive, corporate bureaucracy and branding Kool-aid that those "sleek" websites epitomize. I do admit that the idea of the "single office, uber-elite law firm," with no need for buzzword balderdash and gauche branding, is something I've always romanticized - and that it's an almost-extinct species of firms.

[Anonymous User]

This is a good take. I agree with your overall point and loved the old Cravath website actually. I think you can do restrained with a classy look, Robey Warshaw's landing page. Kellogg has too strong of a high school web design club vibe for my subjective taste.

I feel like Cravath's new website struck that elusive balance between old-school and "modern," but, agreed, their old website was pretty classy (though a lot of people compared it with that of a law review journal lol).

[Jchance]

A good firm website should be like what good legal writing is: simplicity, clarity, and elegance. These qualities speak volume to the firm's quality and prestige.

[Anonymous User]

I strongly dislike Gibson's. Although it's got some modern design aspects (very big font, seemingly meant to be viewed on mobile), I don't love its search function, and it doesn't show pictures until you get to an attorney's actual page, which makes it very hard to figure out who that Gibson attorney you just met is.

Similarly, Cravath literally doesn't have individual pages or images for its associates. Why?

(Also, it's hilarious that every other post in his topic is anonymous. What is sensitive about making fun of a firm's website?)

I concur that Gibson's is bad. I am a fan of Quinn's. I also think that Jones Day has a solid website.

I don't understand why every firm doesn't sink money into their website to have it look nice. Like, some websites really reflect poorly on the firm,

Jones Day's website is solid – despite perhaps having the worst logo in all of biglaw.

[Sackboy]

I will just say that it is absolutely stunning how often firm websites make it obnoxiously hard to find their lateral openings page. Sometimes, they have a whole block of text (maybe 8-9 lines high) on a page with a ton of other text and images with a single word hyperlinked to the jobs page. Dear god, I just want to be able to click on "careers" and then get hit with two options "professional openings" and "legal openings". It should be that simple folks. I don't want to read any firm propaganda or go searching for one dark blue hyperlinked work in a sea of black ones. I just want to see the job openings. I'm a simply person.

[Anonymous User]

Proskauer has a nice, clean, modern site, although the professionals page can be annoying to filter at times. Their firm color scheme has always been one of my favorites.

[theneuro]

I don't know if they've updated it, but the scroll bar on Quinn's website was truly infuriating. Trying to scroll down to find a specific attorney was a roll of the dice at best. And I agree that the search function on GDC's website can be tricky.

I think Keker has a nice website. As does Gunderson.

Keker's website is very nice. As is Bartlit Beck's. I think part of it is they both have such nice offices and the website showcases them.

[Anonymous User]

It’s insane to me that super-rich firms continue to have such ugly or unwieldy websites — Latham comes to mind but there are many other examples — when the cost of an overhaul would be like a rounding error against their annual revenues.

Almost makes me think that that the ugliness is some kind of weird flex, e.g., “our firm doesn’t need a flashy, aesthetic website in order to succeed.”

[ExpOriental]

It’s insane to me that super-rich firms continue to have such ugly or unwieldy websites — Latham comes to mind but there are many other examples — when the cost of an overhaul would be like a rounding error against their annual revenues.

Almost makes me think that that the ugliness is some kind of weird flex, e.g., “our firm doesn’t need a flashy, aesthetic website in order to succeed.”

I think a large part of it is that the boomer partners who would need to give the go-ahead don't see the need, because they're either incapable of distinguishing between good and bad web design, or simply think it's unimportant.

[Anonymous User]

Best: Cleary, K&E, Cooley, WSGR, basically any firm that recently revamped their shitty 90's layouts that look straight out of a free WordPress blog. I think Cleary's website is definitely the best aesthetically and stands out from the others.

Worst: any firm that hasn't revamped their shitty 90's layouts that look straight out of a free WordPress blog (e.g. Latham, DPW).

Also hard agree on the fact that too many law firms make navigating their open positions either incredibly confusing or straight up impossible (only lists office contacts). Do you want lateral hires or not...??

[Anonymous User]

Has someone mentioned Kellogg Hansen? The firm is as top flight as it gets, but its website looks like it was made on Publisher.

It sucks that law firms in general are trying to brand themselves into massive professional services firms and corporations, in structure and management style, and how that's being reflected in the design of their websites, trying to rebrand themselves as "cool" and "modern." It's almost like they know they need the visual to attract eyeballs to get clients because their pure lawyering firepower isn't enough.

A law firm is a [massive] professional services firm, isn't it? Law firm business is so competitive that I think most do look for any advantage they can get. A decent site also helps students that might not otherwise have real attorneys present in their lives connect with people. I also doubt that even v10 firms have the "pure lawyering firepower" that makes them so much more of an obvious choice for business than each other or the next 50 or 100 firms in the modern legal landscape.

I edit to add that I don't even think the website plays in to a clients decision much if at all. Though perhaps through the psychology of marketing it actually does if they're picking between a few.

Totally agree with you, which is why I had that last caveat lol. For the vast majority of firms, it's probably unfeasible to go the Kellogg route, with black and white photographs and zero stock images. Having worked at a Big 4/global consulting firm, I just really don't like the massive, corporate bureaucracy and branding Kool-aid that those "sleek" websites epitomize. I do admit that the idea of the "single office, uber-elite law firm," with no need for buzzword balderdash and gauche branding, is something I've always romanticized - and that it's an almost-extinct species of firms.

Along similar lines, I'm a big fan of Belin McCormick's old website--much smaller-scale obviously it's very much of the one-office/a-firm-that-needs-no-introduction variety.

https://web.archive.org/web/20090211120 ... /index.cfm

Unfortunately their replacement for it is more generic and pretty dated by now imo.

[Anonymous User]

Bad: WSGR's used to be so bad, which was shocking to me given their target clientele. Looks like they changed it in the last year or two though. Now it looks better but is kind of clunky. Forgot to hire a UX designer. Orrick's is kind of a mess.

Good: Gunderson, Nixon Peabody, Cleary.

[Anonymous User]

I strongly dislike Gibson's. Although it's got some modern design aspects (very big font, seemingly meant to be viewed on mobile), I don't love its search function, and it doesn't show pictures until you get to an attorney's actual page, which makes it very hard to figure out who that Gibson attorney you just met is.

Similarly, Cravath literally doesn't have individual pages or images for its associates. Why?

(Also, it's hilarious that every other post in his topic is anonymous. What is sensitive about making fun of a firm's website?)

I concur that Gibson's is bad. I am a fan of Quinn's. I also think that Jones Day has a solid website.

I don't understand why every firm doesn't sink money into their website to have it look nice. Like, some websites really reflect poorly on the firm,

Jones Day's website is solid – despite perhaps having the worst logo in all of biglaw.

The website with the buggy autoplay animation upfront? Absolutely not.

S&C/DPW/K&E/LW all have pretty inoffensive websites. I would like WLRK's more if they didn't have the financialtimes article front and center, feels out of place.

Maybe it's just typical TLS Cleary trolling but I don't like Cleary's website at all -- spacing out the various categories on the top-bar unevenly makes you work to find the relevant categories. S&C's website, for example, has all of that stuff center and at eye-level.

[Anonymous User]

I love the Kramer Levin and Alston & Bird websites.

Cravath finally updating their website was a great idea.

White & Case's website is a bit gauche since they're obviously trying too hard.

Kasowitz would be gauche, too, if it didn't seem like they were going for a DUI defense firm vibe on purpose.