4. Sullivan & Cromwell
5. Davis Polk
As we noted yesterday, the only change in the top five is Skadden jumping over S&C. Is that fair? A lot of you opined that Skadden’s prestige score was settled before it starting deferring associates. But surprisingly few of you noted that Skadden paid out bonuses that were double what Cravath, S&C, and DPW paid.
Is twice as much bonus money worth one extra spot in the rankings? Vault’s managing editor, Brian Dalton, suggests that Skadden’s bonus carried some weight:
Skadden had a good year, climbing over Sullivan & Cromwell to take the #3 spot. Among other factors, the notion of ‘half-Skadden’ is a potent one, though not quite enough to carry the firm past Cravath. (Mildly ironic in that Cravath’s bonus decision spawned that meme.)
Truly striking is the reach of the Skadden brand: Third in the Boston regional ranking, second in Chicago, and–taking over from Latham–No. 1 in Northern and Southern California. (Vault’s regional rankings are calculated using only the votes of the survey respondents in the particular region.) By contrast, in its hometown of New York City, Skadden places fifth. (These regional rankings are coming soon to the site.)
After the jump, should any of these firms in the top five move over to make room for somebody else?
For those of you who think not firing people should be a big part of a firm’s prestige score, Law Shucks has some interesting numbers for you. Take a look at this chart:
You can access the full chart here.
Should a firm like Skadden or S&C make room for Cleary on the basis of layoffs alone?
There might have been limited movement in the Vault top five, but there are still a lot of questions.
Have at the top five in the comments. More threads to come.
Layoffs in the Vault 25 [Law Shucks]
Finally: The 2010 Law Firm Rankings [Vault]
Earlier: Official New Vault Rankings