Importance of chambers bands? Forum

[Anonymous User]

The consensus seems to be not to rely on vault and to look at chambers bands for practices. How big is the difference between bands? Is the difference small enough that I should make a decision based on fit between a firm in band 1 vs 4 in my practice area of interest? Or is it a big enough difference that it might not be recommended to pick the firm in band 4 over band 1?

[Anonymous User]

Yes, Band 1 v. Band 4 is a substantial difference and you should make a decision based on that if it's in your area of interest. And Vault is relevant as a proxy for exit options

[Anonymous User]

Caveats—Chambers does not always accurately assess boutique-like firms because its methods are tilted to an extent towards scale. Just like its individual rankings are tilted towards older attorneys. Also, IME Chambers puts significantly less effort into its rankings of non-major markets.

[Anonymous User]

The difference between a Band 4 and a Band 1 is imo enough to put you on notice that maybe you should ask around and see what is up, so in that respect I wouldn't necessarily ignore it.

[UnfrozenCaveman]

Caveats—Chambers does not always accurately assess boutique-like firms because its methods are tilted to an extent towards scale. Just like its individual rankings are tilted towards older attorneys. Also, IME Chambers puts significantly less effort into its rankings of non-major markets.

I agree with this. Chambers is sort of a proxy for volume of work (and not necessarily competency or quality though volume usually goes hand in hand with those things) at least for specific transactional rankings.

[jotarokujo]

Caveats—Chambers does not always accurately assess boutique-like firms because its methods are tilted to an extent towards scale. Just like its individual rankings are tilted towards older attorneys. Also, IME Chambers puts significantly less effort into its rankings of non-major markets.

seconding this. Follow bands for comparing big firms, they are reliable. Do not follow when comparing litigation boutiques. For example, susman is below some big firms in litigation on chambers

[Anonymous User]

https://chambers.com/about-us/methodology

Here's the methodology. It shouldn't be impacted by size of firm.

[Sackboy]

https://chambers.com/about-us/methodology

Here's the methodology. It shouldn't be impacted by size of firm.

Neither should Vault, but it clearly is.

[nealric]

https://chambers.com/about-us/methodology

Here's the methodology. It shouldn't be impacted by size of firm.

I've been interviewed and surveyed several times by chambers as a client. Like Vault, name recognition
and volume matters.

[Anonymous User]

Or bigger firms have more resources and better practice groups in general, despite TLS' fetish for lit boutiques

[The Lsat Airbender]

Or bigger firms have more resources and better practice groups in general, despite TLS' fetish for lit boutiques

brave anon

[Anonymous User]

Or bigger firms have more resources and better practice groups in general, despite TLS' fetish for lit boutiques

It makes sense when you realize Chambers ranks are created for clients, and large corporate clients in particular.

For a one-stop-shop for GCL matters, obviously a Gibson or Kirkland (for example) beats Susman. They have strength across a broader range of practice groups, can transition a matter from team to team (e.g., from an SEC investigation to related shareholder derivative litigation), and have a larger roster of associates to support heavy doc discovery and multidistrict litigation.

But that's not what lit boutiques want to be. Lit boutiques want to handle high stakes cases with leanly staffed teams of extremely well credentialed and experienced attorneys. Very few biglaw teams can field a better trial team than firms like Susman or Bartlit, given that associates at the latter firms learn and experience much more than biglaw associates early in their careers.

But when those Susman or Bartlit associates grow up, they won't have the experience or skill to lead and manage massive teams or go in house to a large corporation and manage a corporate legal group. What they will be is a much better and more experienced litigator.

There's certainly pros and cons to both career pathways. It's true that lit boutiques in general require more prestigious credentials than biglaw, but that doesn't automatically make them a better choice for all candidates. To each their own.

[nealric]

Or bigger firms have more resources and better practice groups in general, despite TLS' fetish for lit boutiques

Quited user is CondescendingLiberal. Outed for anon abuse.

They are offering different products. If you are working on a big dispute between public companies that's going to bog down in zillions of discovery documents and will never ever actually go to trial, it doesn't make much sense to go with Sussman. If your case is likely to go to trial, then you probably don't want a mega biglaw firm that has scads of partners who have never first chaired any trial of substance.

If you are a law student or junior shopping firms, it comes down to what kind of lawyer you want to be and the level of intensity you are looking for. Few biglaw jobs are chill, but an elite boutique that is in trial all the time will be extra intense.