Rankings, Ratings, and Surveys: A Cost of Doing Business
An “avalanche.” A “deluge.” A “siege.” “Saturation” leading to “exhaustion.” It is in such terms that law firm marketing and communications professionals speak about the various surveys—and the resultant rankings, ratings, and lists—with which they must contend. Chambers, Vault, Law360, The Best Lawyers, Martindale-Hubbell, The Financial Times … when will the madness end? The firms’ view of the industry publications is similar to that of celebrities regarding paparazzi: they are intrusive, annoying, and getting worse.
A group of law firm media relations executives met in New York recently to discuss whether law firms could develop a collective response to the survey glut. Apparently, the gist of the outcome of the discussion concerned establishing some sort of ratings body which would assign the various publications into descending categories of credibility, in order to help the members prioritize their resources. To which the only response has to be “Isn’t it pretty to think so?” Of course, there will be no broad, “official” response to the survey “problem.” There will be no “independent body” assessing the publishers’ bona fides. The firms are too competitive, the market is too fluid, and everyone has better things to do.
But, yes, of course there is an important point to be made about the baleful impact of rankings culture on the legal profession (though it’s not the “woe is us” chorus from the marketing departments). As much as we all profess to love transparency and the free market of information, it hard to argue that the current cumulative impact of the proliferation of law firm rankings is other than regrettable. Sure, in some respects, these rankings seem like a capital idea. What is not to like about objective bases for prospective candidates and clients to assess firms? Alas, as a wise man once said, “not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.”
In his book Everyone’s A Winner, sociology professor Joel Best observes that ranked lists “serve a valuable purpose in response to a social need for creating meaning in the objects and people around us.” The legal industry—to a degree unparalleled by any other—is obsessed with such rankings and lists, presumably owing to the innate competitiveness of the attorney personality. A competitive nature is obviously necessary in a high stakes service industry, when there are cases to be won or terms to be negotiated. Hardly irrelevant also are post-Recession, “New Normal” pressures on the market for legal services. Firms have turned to surveys and rankings as a way of differentiating themselves against rivals in an ever more cutthroat world. Firms have to fight harder for business and—who knows?—maybe the firm’s relative placement in some ranking will move the needle in the firm’s favor. Right? Well, we actually have little reason to believe this, but it sounds plausible.
Take probably the highest profile example: The Amlaw 100. Steve Brill introduced the idea of PPP back in 1985. Does anyone think that its eventual centrality has been a boon to the profession? A once “learned and honorable” profession has been overwhelmed by a metric. Another point made by Professor Best: “It follows that when high levels of prestige are crucial, especially for an organization’s bottom line or for individuals’ career advancement, then there is risk of behavior aimed at gaming the system.” By now, everyone knows that PPP is a number that can and will be manipulated by firms. Dewey we even need to explain? Putting aside the inevitable flim-flammery associated with the Amlaw financial lists, the underlying idea, the focus on profit “undermines the differences between the practice of law being a profession rather than solely a business” in the words of Dentons leadership as they explained why that firm was opting out of the whole PPP reporting process. Moreover, Dentons continues, “From a client perspective, they see our profitability as services that aren’t invested into further support for them.”
That all said, whether or not they are a “bad thing,” the efforts of legal publishers to diversify their revenue streams via more lists, rankings or surveys are not going to diminish. We are stuck with them—“death and taxes”-style— and we might as well get used to it.
In order to manage the survey onslaught, firms must prioritize. Not all surveys and rankings are created equal. There is a hierarchy. According the conversations with Biglaw insiders, this can be considered an approximate “ranking of rankings”:
The Financial Times Innovative Lawyer Report. What truly distinguishes the FT report is its audience. No other publication is as likely to be seen by actual corporate decision makers. Moreover, according to one source, no other report is as “well-researched and grounded in subject-mater expertise.”
The American Lawyer Litigation Department of the Year (biennial)
The Amlaw 100, etc. For all its shortcomings, this is still all we really know about law firm finances.
The various Chambers departmental ratings. (“They are really more about sheer quantity rather than quality.”)
Law360. “A franchise on the rise.”
Vault. “Still the most important candidate-facing list.”
While firms must allocate resources based on the relative importance of the various rankings, a word of caution. After all, there are popular, well-established surveys of today that were once dismissed as a waste of time. The Vault 100 has considerable clout today, but early in its history (circa 1998 or so), there was an effort among some top firms to deprive the upstart company of oxygen and collectively refuse to engage with them. The demand for such information would not be denied and now the Vault survey is an institution. In a fluid market, the next Vault is inevitable and firms are well advised to keep an open mind. (We’ve resisted any mention thus far of the ATL’s new—and immediately popular—law firm rankings. The ATL rankings are a case apart in that they require no engagement on the part of the firms.)
|