The ATL Office 100 Law Firm Rankings (2016)

Lots of people rank law firms. And you can dice up law firm rankings in so many ways: by “prestige,” revenues, and more. That’s all great, but if you are going to work in a Biglaw firm, you are going to be working in a specific office. And that office is going to make or break your experience with your firm. Not all offices are created equal, even within the same firm. There are firms that aren’t thought of very highly overall, but a specific office of their operation might be doing great work and be the place for your kind of thing.

With these rankings, Above the Law is trying to capture the strength and relevance of major law firms in today's market. Who are the market leaders? Which firms are still making and retaining their partners? Where do you want to work? But the methods for evaluating the large law firms that are best at the business of practicing law are stuck in the past. The new normal means new challenges for firms. Is bigger always better? More revenue sounds nice, unless the firm is overly reliant on a few rainmakers who can jump ship and leave the rest of the firm scrambling for clients. Surely, the last client who cared about white-shoe status is somewhere trying to find a new ribbon for his typewriter.

The Office 100 blends objective data points (changes in headcount over time, promotional prospects, and number of women partners) with subjective feedback from over 20,000 associates, partners, and other members of the legal community. The result is a more complete picture of each individual office, encompassing employee satisfaction, compensation, reputation, desirability as an employer, and data-driven measures of firm growth. The Office 100 is meant to offer a new perspective on some of the most prestigious and wealthy firms by using a new rubric to show how they stack up both against their competitors and across their own offices.

The ATL Office 100 Law Firm Rankings

Rank 2015 Rank Firm Office Score
1 1 Kirkland & Ellis LLP Chicago 85.00
2 11 Latham & Watkins LLP Los Angeles 84.87
3 6 Davis Polk & Wardwell New York 84.62
4 22 Vinson & Elkins LLP Houston 83.78
5 13 (tie) Sidley Austin LLP Chicago 83.39
6 9 Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP Los Angeles 81.95
7 5 Alston & Bird LLP Atlanta 81.42
8 18 King & Spalding Atlanta 81.26
9 24 Latham & Watkins LLP Chicago 81.17
10 13 (tie) Sullivan & Cromwell LLP New York 80.58
11   Jones Day Cleveland 80.38
12 15 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP New York 80.28
13 12 Covington & Burling LLP Washington, DC 79.89
14 20 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates Chicago 79.75
15 8 Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP New York 79.66
16 36 Latham & Watkins LLP Houston 79.45
17   Greenberg Traurig, LLP Miami 79.22
18 29 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP New York 79.09
19 27 Kirkland & Ellis LLP Washington, DC 78.67
20 17 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP New York 78.66
21 30 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates Los Angeles 78.62
22 7 Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP Los Angeles 78.14
23 28 Davis Polk & Wardwell Silicon Valley 78.11
24 40 (tie) Cooley LLP Silicon Valley 77.53
25 25 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates New York 77.33
26 42 Latham & Watkins LLP Silicon Valley 77.31
27 26 WilmerHale Washington, DC 77.17
28 2 Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz New York 77.14
29 4 Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP Philadelphia 77.08
30 47 Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP New York 76.81
31 39 Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP Los Angeles 76.53
32 31 Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP San Francisco 76.28
33 10 Kirkland & Ellis LLP San Francisco 76.03
34 16 WilmerHale Boston 75.80
35 63 Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP San Francisco 75.77
36   K&L Gates LLP Pittsburgh 75.69
37 19 Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP Washington, DC 75.62
38 40 (tie) Debevoise & Plimpton LLP New York 75.27
39 34 Kirkland & Ellis LLP Los Angeles 75.25
40 45 Williams & Connolly LLP Washington, DC 75.09
41 52 Sidley Austin LLP Washington, DC 74.93
42 77 Mayer Brown LLP Chicago 74.53
43   Kirkland & Ellis New York 74.20
44 37 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Washington, DC 74.20
45   Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP Dallas 74.14
46 76 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates Silicon Valley 74.11
47 3 Ropes & Gray LLP Boston 74.09
48 38 Latham & Watkins LLP San Francisco 74.08
49 33 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Atlanta 74.00
50   Reed Smith LLP Pittsburgh 73.96
51   Jones Day Pittsburgh 73.89
52 54 Latham & Watkins LLP New York 73.65
52   Baker & Hostetler LLP Cleveland 73.65
53 23 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates Washington, DC 73.42
54 56 Covington & Burling LLP San Francisco 73.41
54 57 Jones Day Chicago 73.41
55 35 O'Melveny & Myers LLP Los Angeles 73.35
56 32 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Silicon Valley 73.34
57 51 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP New York 73.32
58 55 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP Washington, DC 72.90
59 82 Jenner & Block LLP Chicago 72.79
60 49 Irell & Manella LLP Los Angeles 72.57
61 68 Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP Washington, DC 72.31
62 78 Baker & Hostetler LLP Philadelphia 72.30
63 21 Dechert LLP Philadelphia 72.00
64 48 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati San Francisco 71.84
65 85 McDermott Will & Emery LLP Chicago 71.67
66 58 Goodwin Procter LLP Boston 71.54
67   Vinson & Elkins LLP Dallas 71.34
68 83 Sidley Austin LLP Los Angeles 71.26
69   Baker Botts LLP Dallas 71.00
70 61 Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP New York 70.97
71 59 Jones Day Washington, DC 70.82
72 75 Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP Silicon Valley 70.71
73 81 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Silicon Valley 70.58
74 95 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Silicon Valley 70.56
75 60 Arnold & Porter LLP Washington, DC 70.38
76 44 Latham & Watkins LLP Washington, DC 70.22
77 88 Cooley LLP San Francisco 70.18
77 53 Morrison & Foerster LLP San Francisco 70.18
78 69 Morrison & Foerster LLP Silicon Valley 70.13
79 70 Baker Botts LLP Houston 70.11
80 80 Paul Hastings LLP Los Angeles 70.09
81 67 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP San Francisco 70.00
82 64 Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP New York 69.75
83   Sidley Austin LLP Dallas 69.34
84 66 Hogan Lovells US LLP Washington, DC 69.28
85   Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Silicon Valley 69.05
86   Paul Hastings LLP Washington, DC 68.85
87 72 Susman Godfrey L.L.P. Houston 68.79
88   Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP New York 68.78
89 74 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Washington, DC 68.63
90   Fenwick & West LLP Silicon Valley 68.50
91   Winston & Strawn LLP Chicago 68.42
92 62 Jones Day Atlanta 68.11
93 91 Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP New York 67.61
94   O'Melveny & Myers LLP Washington, DC 67.54
95 43 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates Boston 67.41
96   Jones Day Dallas 67.38
97 79 Morrison & Foerster LLP Los Angeles 66.98
98   Keker & Van Nest LLP San Francisco 66.91
98 86 Fish & Richardson Boston 66.91
99   White & Case Miami 66.84
100 71 Sidley Austin LLP San Francisco 66.74




Methodology

Over the summer, we conducted the ATL Law Firm Reputation Survey, asking those of you working in Biglaw to rate your peers and competitors. Included in these rankings were market-specific questions, inquiring about both the reputation of firms in each survey participant's city as well as each firm's desirability as a potential employer. In creating the survey, we limited our city-specific firm choices to offices with at least 50 lawyers. Our office rankings include the following markets: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Silicon Valley and Washington, DC.

Firms are rated on a scale with 100 possible points:

  • Market-specific reputation survey*
    “Strength and quality of practice”: 35%
    “Potential employer”: 15%
  • Leverage
    Ratio of equity partners to all other attorneys: 5%
  • Growth/decay
    % change in headcount since 2010: 5%
  • Percentage of women partners: 5%
  • Partnership prospects
    % of all non-partners who made partner in the most recent promotion cycle: 5%**
  • Insider satisfaction
    ATL Insider Survey: 5%
  • Compensation rating: 25%***

Clearly, we are making value judgments in choosing and assigning weight to these metrics. For example, we are rewarding firms for maintaining low leverage, or for offering a relatively better chance for incoming associates to eventually ascend to partnership.

Also, to be sure, law firms are not homogenous in their approaches to partnership tracks or compensation structures or other aspects that we have sought to measure here, but we have done our best to account for these differences and create a formula that allows for meaningful comparisons.

The perfect "ATL score" is 100. Each firm is awarded a maximum number of points based on the weight of each metric (a maximum of 25 points for highest compensation rating, 5 points for highest growth headcount, etc.). The points are awarded on a sliding scale from highest to lowest. (For certain categories, firms were placed into tiers and points were apportioned accordingly.) Those points add up to the total ATL score seen on the rankings table.



* We limited our city-specific firm choices to offices with at least 50 lawyers. Survey conducted in partnership with Kinney Recruiting.
** Promotion data courtesy of NavForward.
*** Compensation rating accounts for the following 4 factors: first-year salary, recent track record for bonuses, profits per partner (as reported to Am Law), and survey data.





Questions about our rankings? Contact us at research@abovethelaw.com.




 

Download a free copy of Kinney Recruiting's
How to Work with a Recruiter and Find the Perfect Job.


Download the eBook Now

Comments