Small Law Firms

Lawyer Rankings Are Little More Than Flawed Popularity Contests

If the methodology is not transparent, the system looks like it’s playing favorites or is rewarding people for having better marketing skills.

By  
on

It looks like the hot topic for the next few weeks will be the annual release of the U.S. News Law School Caste System. You would think that once you left law school, you wouldn’t have to worry about being ranked anymore. But you would be wrong.

After you have been in practice for a few years, some of your friends and colleagues will announce that that were selected to be a Super Lawyer, Best Lawyer, or Ultra-Mega-Hyper Lawyer. Or they got the perfect 10 rating from Avvo, the AV rating from Martindale-Hubble, or received one of those Top 40 Under 40 awards. You might have received one of these accolades.

Do you ever wonder about how they select these people? If you were selected, you most likely won’t care because their methodology was obviously sound. On the other hand, if you were not selected but the moron three suites down got the nod, then you have every reason to be suspicious.

I won’t get into the details of how these companies make their selections but many of them use the following methods:

Peer reviews. Peer reviews are done one of two ways or a combination. Either the rating organization will contact certain reputable lawyers and ask for recommendations or they will solicit nominations from their membership or the bar directory. In the former case, the reputable lawyers selected most likely do not know every lawyer in their practice area and so they will only nominate people they know. In the latter case, it can be exploited by well-connected attorneys who can ask everyone they know for a nomination.

Client reviews. Reviews from prior clients could be helpful. But I question how ranking companies get in touch with these former clients. For smaller law firms that help small businesses and individuals, this can get complicated. Do they ask lawyers for client feedback? If so, then the lawyers will obviously send clients who will only give positive testimonials. Will certain clients be treated more favorably than others? Or do the researchers just ask people they know or take a random sample? None of the ranking companies don’t give clear answers on this.

Accomplishments. Finally, the deciders will look at your recent accomplishments. This includes any speaking engagements, leadership positions, or any published articles, to name a few. Or they check to see if you have been involved in high-profile cases. Unfortunately, this is one of the reasons why there are a fair number of subpar CLE presentations, and inept people running committees and even bar associations. And there are a few lawyers who care more about being on the evening news rather than helping clients. But as with peer and client reviews, how will these accomplishments be ranked? I’m sure all of us know at least one person who was the leader in name only but delegated 95% of their work to a subordinate. Yet the president will be looked at more favorably for rankings purposes while the subordinate will “gain experience.”

Sponsored

Based on the above, getting placed on these rankings is in large part a popularity contest. This isn’t necessarily bad since most lawyers are likely to nominate the ones they feel are the best. However, some will nominate certain attorneys for non-meritorious reasons, such as reciprocating nominations, being the only attorney they know in a certain practice area, or returning a favor for multiple referrals.

I think the fundamental problem is that most potential clients don’t do any due diligence on these lawyer-ranking systems. They probably trust the system because they think it is unbiased. While that could be true, a lot of these ranking companies make a lot of money from lawyers by selling them plaques, advertising space on their publications, and marketing consultation services. While I don’t believe most of the reputable ranking companies accept bribes in exchange for a recognition, it should at least raise a red flag. And there are very few articles that point out the flaws in lawyer-ranking systems.

Another problem with these ranking systems is that their methodology is not very clear. As I mentioned earlier, most don’t mention whether certain clients, certain cases, or certain accomplishments are looked at more favorably than others. And some have even mentioned that their methods are proprietary or even patented. While I get that they don’t want lawyers to try to manipulate their system, if the methodology is not transparent, the system looks like it’s playing favorites or is rewarding people for having better marketing skills.

Most of these ranking organizations will probably admit that their system is not perfect because of the great deal of subjectivity involved. But they will also claim potential clients need some way to differentiate attorneys and an imperfect ranking system is better than none at all.

For better or for worse, lawyers will always be ranked and someone will make a lot of money doing it. Potential clients doing their due diligence need to be warned that the rankings methodology is not perfect. In the meantime, most of these ranking systems seem to favor those who know more people or have more resources.

Sponsored

Shannon Achimalbe was a former solo practitioner for five years before deciding to sell out and get back on the corporate ladder. Shannon can be reached by email at sachimalbe@excite.com and via Twitter: @ShanonAchimalbe.

Topics

, ,