2017 Power 100 Law Firm Rankings

Shares19

Let's be clear: in this market, the "best" law firm is the one that will employ you. If you have a job, congratulations, you're number one. 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.

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? Power, post-recession, is about what you are, not what you used to be.

The Power 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 firm, encompassing employee satisfaction, compensation, reputation, desirability as an employer, and data-driven measures of firm growth. The Power 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 against the competition.

The ATL Power 100 Law Firm Rankings

Rank 2016 Rank Firm Score
1 1 Cravath, Swaine & Moore 78.77
2 5 Kirkland & Ellis 78.49
3 13 Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan 76.58
4 14 Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz 76.37
5 10 Covington & Burling 75.91
6 7 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison 75.71
7 4 Latham & Watkins 75.64
8 3 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 75.27
9 2 Boies, Schiller & Flexner 74.47
10 8 Sullivan & Cromwell 74.3
11 15 Sidley Austin 74.18
12 6 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom 73.89
13 18 Williams & Connolly 73.76
14 12 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton 73.57
15 19 Debevoise & Plimpton 72.23
16 22 Shearman & Sterling 71.73
17 17 Weil, Gotshal & Manges 71.66
18 20 Jones Day 71.61
19 24 Ropes & Gray 71.33
20 9 Davis Polk & Wardwell 71.3
21 34 Paul Hastings LLP 71.05
22 16 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr 70.61
23 11 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher 70.58
24 39 Irell & Manella 70.4
25 25 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld 69.87
26 32 Mayer Brown 69.7
27 41 Proskauer Rose 69.38
28 38 Hogan Lovells 69.32
29 31 Cooley 69.31
30 33 Morrison & Foerster 69.24
31 46 Vinson & Elkins 69.1
32 26 Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy 69.06
33 48 Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson 69.03
34 42 Munger Tolles & Olson 69
35 37 Arnold & Porter 68.98
36 50 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 68.25
37 28 O'Melveny & Myers 67.9
38 45 King & Spalding 67.77
39 29 Perkins Coie 67.63
40 27 Willkie Farr & Gallagher 67.52
41 39 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 67.48
42 81 Jenner & Block 67.43
43 21 Cahill Gordon & Reindel 67.07
44 35 McDermott Will & Emery 67.06
45 30 White & Case 66.91
46 60 Sheppard Mullin 66.83
47 44 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 66.8
48 69 Susman Godfrey 66.78
49 40 Fish & Richardson 66.7
50 36 Goodwin Procter 66.69
51 47 Baker & McKenzie 65.85
52 23 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 65.41
53 61 Dechert 64.8
54 87 Davis Wright Tremaine 64.54
55 39 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft 64.07
56 51 Steptoe & Johnson LLP 63.81
57 55 Winston & Strawn 63.73
58 57 Norton Rose Fulbright 63.66
59 43 Alston & Bird 63.52
60 52 DLA Piper 63.51
61 68 Fenwick & West 63.41
62 62 Reed Smith 63.19
63 58 Foley and Lardner 62.68
64 54 Baker Botts 62.42
65 71 Crowell & Moring 60.87
66 80 Shook, Hardy & Bacon 60.83
67 53 Baker & Hostetler 60.81
68 66 Haynes and Boone 60.34
69 59 Dentons 60.31
70 56 Greenberg Traurig 60.29
70 67 Bryan Cave 60.29
71 83 Venable 59.5
72 64 Katten Muchin Rosenman 58.63
73 73 Seyfarth Shaw 58.55
74 82 Hunton & Williams 58.47
75   Linklaters 58.04
76 100 Schulte Roth & Zabel 57.99
77 74 Bracewell & Giuliani 57.93
78 75 Nixon Peabody 57.5
79 72 Drinker Biddle & Reath 57.27
80   Allen & Overy 57.26
81 91 Wiley Rein 56.89
82 79 Foley Hoag 56.27
83 84 Mintz Levin 56.05
84 77 McGuireWoods 55.82
85 90 Locke Lord LLP 55.71
86   Stinson Leonard Street LLP 55.54
87   Freshfields Bruckhaus Derringer 55.49
88   Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler 55.31
88 95 Holland & Knight 55.31
89   Brown Rudnick 55.21
90 92 Duane Morris 55.08
91   Hughes Hubbard & Reed 54.98
92 85 Dorsey & Whitney 54.97
93   Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney 54.66
94 88 Schiff Hardin 54.54
95 63 Squire Patton Boggs 54.14
96   Thompson & Knight 53.85
97 49 K&L Gates 53.78
98 98 Kaye Scholer 53.65
99 94 Blank Rome 53.63
100   Jackson Walker 53.59




Methodology

This past summer, we conducted the ATL Law Firm Reputation Survey, asking those of you working in Biglaw to rate your peers and competitors. For our purposes, we split “reputation” into two distinct aspects: 1) the reputed strength and quality of a firm’s practice, and 2) the perceived desirability of the firm as a potential employer. (For some, these factors will be functionally equivalent. For others, these are less overlapping considerations.) In addition, the ATL Law Firm Reputation Survey asked respondents to rate firms in their specific market for both practice quality as well as desirability as potential employers. (In creating the survey, we limited our city-specific firm choices to offices with at least 50 lawyers.)

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%*

Obviously, 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.



* 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.