The ATL 2015 Law Firm Rankings Top Regional Offices
Welcome to the ATL 2015 Law Firm Rankings Top Regional Offices, presented by Kinney Recruiting.
For most lawyers, the practice of law is an intensely local affair. The majority of legal careers are dependent on personal and professional connections in a particular community, each with its own courthouse culture and folkways. This might be less true for those practicing in a more “globalized” large law firm context, yet as our ATL Power 100 By Office demonstrated, not all offices are created equal, even within the same firm. The fact is, a firm’s practice and culture in one market do not necessarily translate everywhere. The ATL Regional Law Firm Rankings expand on the findings of our Office rankings and provide a targeted look at the top firms in ten major markets.
The Top Regional Offices
Rank | Firm | Score |
---|---|---|
Atlanta | ||
1 | Alston & Bird LLP | 81.71 |
2 | King & Spalding | 77.90 |
3 | Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP | 69.65 |
4 | Jones Day | 61.22 |
5 | McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP | 55.71 |
6 | Paul Hastings LLP | 53.27 |
7 | Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 53.25 |
8 | Troutman Sanders LLP | 51.15 |
9 | Bryan Cave LLP | 43.74 |
10 | Ballard Spahr LLP | 34.11 |
Boston | ||
1 | Ropes & Gray LLP | 87.96 |
2 | WilmerHale | 80.60 |
3 | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates | 72.44 |
4 | Goodwin Procter LLP | 69.32 |
5 | Fish & Richardson P.C. | 63.71 |
6 | Cooley LLP | 63.22 |
7 | Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo P.C. | 63.10 |
8 | Proskauer Rose LLP | 61.60 |
9 | Foley Hoag LLP | 56.43 |
10 | Nixon Peabody LLP | 53.35 |
11 | Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 52.42 |
12 | Foley & Lardner LLP | 51.11 |
13 | Choate Hall & Stewart LLP | 50.98 |
14 | Bingham McCutchen LLP | 50.54 |
15 | Goulston & Storrs, PC | 49.61 |
16 | Sullivan & Worcester LLP | 49.42 |
17 | Holland & Knight LLP | 44.12 |
18 | Seyfarth Shaw LLP | 41.90 |
19 | Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP | 37.63 |
20 | Wolf Greenfield & Sacks PC | 36.68 |
21 | Brown Rudnick LLP | 34.51 |
22 | Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP | 33.68 |
23 | Duane Morris LLP | 32.59 |
24 | Burns & Levinson LLP | 24.39 |
25 | Hinckley Allen & Snyder LLP | 20.96 |
Chicago | ||
1 | Kirkland & Ellis LLP | 88.76 |
2 | Sidley Austin LLP | 81.99 |
3 | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates | 78.98 |
4 | Latham & Watkins LLP | 78.33 |
5 | Jones Day | 70.00 |
6 | Mayer Brown LLP | 67.53 |
7 | Jenner & Block LLP | 65.89 |
8 | McDermott Will & Emery LLP | 64.67 |
9 | Ropes & Gray LLP | 61.77 |
10 | Winston & Strawn LLP | 61.06 |
11 | Perkins Coie LLP | 56.54 |
12 | Baker & McKenzie | 55.21 |
13 | Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP | 54.59 |
14 | Foley & Lardner LLP | 54.10 |
15 | Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 53.98 |
16 | Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | 52.73 |
17 | DLA Piper | 52.13 |
18 | Reed Smith LLP | 51.99 |
19 | Dentons | 51.77 |
20 | Schiff Hardin LLP | 51.31 |
21 | Bryan Cave LLP | 48.90 |
22 | McGuireWoods LLP | 48.82 |
23 | Seyfarth Shaw LLP | 46.13 |
24 | Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP | 44.65 |
25 | Holland & Knight LLP | 42.66 |
Houston | ||
1 | Vinson & Elkins LLP | 79.79 |
2 | Latham & Watkins LLP | 77.67 |
3 | Susman Godfrey L.L.P. | 72.68 |
4 | Baker Botts LLP | 69.98 |
5 | Bracewell & Giuliani LLP | 59.55 |
6 | Jones Day | 57.25 |
7 | Norton Rose Fulbright | 57.06 |
8 | Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP | 56.69 |
9 | Andrews Kurth LLP | 51.84 |
10 | King & Spalding | 51.58 |
Los Angeles | ||
1 | Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP | 83.87 |
2 | Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP | 83.23 |
3 | Latham & Watkins LLP | 81.79 |
4 | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates | 75.34 |
5 | O'Melveny & Myers LLP | 75.19 |
6 | Kirkland & Ellis LLP | 73.08 |
7 | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP | 72.13 |
8 | Irell & Manella LLP | 71.08 |
9 | Morrison & Foerster LLP | 65.38 |
10 | Paul Hastings LLP | 64.56 |
11 | Sidley Austin LLP | 64.10 |
12 | Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | 63.01 |
13 | Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 59.84 |
14 | Jones Day | 58.61 |
15 | Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP | 57.02 |
16 | Arnold & Porter LLP | 55.51 |
17 | Proskauer Rose LLP | 55.38 |
18 | Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP | 54.92 |
19 | Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP | 54.12 |
20 | Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP | 52.59 |
21 | DLA Piper | 50.42 |
22 | Reed Smith LLP | 49.75 |
23 | Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP | 48.83 |
24 | Winston & Strawn LLP | 47.75 |
25 | Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP | 46.81 |
New York | ||
1 | Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz | 83.57 |
2 | Davis Polk & Wardwell | 82.62 |
3 | Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP | 81.48 |
4 | Sullivan & Cromwell LLP | 79.53 |
5 | Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP | 79.29 |
6 | Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP | 78.93 |
7 | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates | 76.24 |
8 | Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP | 75.83 |
9 | Debevoise & Plimpton LLP | 73.84 |
10 | Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP | 72.01 |
11 | Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP | 71.45 |
12 | Latham & Watkins LLP | 71.15 |
13 | Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP | 69.75 |
14 | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP | 68.60 |
15 | Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP | 65.72 |
16 | Covington & Burling LLP | 64.48 |
17 | Sidley Austin LLP | 63.34 |
18 | Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP | 62.76 |
19 | Shearman & Sterling LLP | 61.80 |
20 | WilmerHale | 61.77 |
21 | Proskauer Rose LLP | 61.75 |
22 | Morrison & Foerster LLP | 61.11 |
23 | Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP | 59.24 |
24 | Paul Hastings LLP | 58.85 |
25 | Kirkland & Ellis | 58.25 |
Philadelphia | ||
1 | Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP | 87.99 |
2 | Dechert LLP | 79.58 |
3 | Pepper Hamilton LLP | 70.42 |
4 | Reed Smith LLP | 68.56 |
5 | Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP | 64.97 |
6 | Baker & Hostetler LLP | 64.33 |
7 | Duane Morris LLP | 53.40 |
8 | Ballard Spahr LLP | 53.28 |
9 | Blank Rome LLP | 50.54 |
10 | Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin | 48.53 |
San Francisco | ||
1 | Kirkland & Ellis LLP | 85.22 |
2 | Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP | 76.41 |
3 | Latham & Watkins LLP | 74.73 |
4 | Morrison & Foerster LLP | 70.40 |
5 | Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati | 70.30 |
6 | Covington & Burling LLP | 68.32 |
7 | Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | 68.05 |
8 | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP | 66.97 |
9 | Sidley Austin LLP | 66.81 |
10 | Fenwick & West LLP | 65.96 |
11 | Keker & Van Nest LLP | 64.94 |
12 | O'Melveny & Myers LLP | 62.31 |
13 | Cooley LLP | 61.68 |
14 | Jones Day | 61.66 |
15 | Paul Hastings LLP | 61.56 |
16 | Ropes & Gray LLP | 58.38 |
17 | Farella Braun + Martel LLP | 52.83 |
18 | Dentons | 49.11 |
19 | Littler Mendelson P.C. | 48.07 |
20 | Nixon Peabody LLP | 47.66 |
21 | Bingham McCutchen LLP | 47.01 |
22 | Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP | 46.52 |
23 | Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP | 46.35 |
24 | Reed Smith LLP | 41.24 |
25 | Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP | 40.87 |
Silicon Valley | ||
1 | Davis Polk & Wardwell | 85.32 |
2 | Cooley LLP | 81.85 |
3 | Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati | 80.63 |
4 | Latham & Watkins LLP | 80.47 |
5 | Morrison & Foerster LLP | 72.63 |
6 | Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP | 72.16 |
7 | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates | 68.19 |
8 | Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP | 66.96 |
9 | Fenwick & West LLP | 64.48 |
10 | Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP | 61.43 |
Washington, DC | ||
1 | Covington & Burling LLP | 80.81 |
2 | Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP | 77.75 |
3 | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates | 77.53 |
4 | WilmerHale | 75.15 |
5 | Kirkland & Ellis LLP | 74.01 |
6 | Williams & Connolly LLP | 73.79 |
7 | Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP | 73.31 |
8 | Latham & Watkins LLP | 70.65 |
9 | Sidley Austin LLP | 70.13 |
10 | Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP | 69.17 |
11 | Arnold & Porter LLP | 66.90 |
12 | Hogan Lovells US LLP | 66.83 |
13 | Jones Day | 66.47 |
14 | Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP | 65.55 |
15 | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP | 65.45 |
16 | White & Case LLP | 58.97 |
17 | Ropes & Gray LLP | 58.45 |
18 | O'Melveny & Myers LLP | 58.18 |
19 | Morrison & Foerster LLP | 56.77 |
20 | Mayer Brown LLP | 55.57 |
21 | Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP | 55.51 |
22 | Wiley Rein LLP | 55.32 |
23 | Jenner & Block LLP | 54.76 |
24 | Paul Hastings LLP | 54.73 |
25 | King & Spalding | 53.88 |
Methodology
Back in July, we launched 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 regional 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 2009: 5% - Percentage of women partners: 5%
- “Homegrown” partners
Likelihood of incoming associates making equity partner: 5%* -
Insider satisfaction
ATL Insider Survey: 5%** - Compensation rating: 25%***
As with the Power 100, 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.
* Survey conducted in partnership with Kinney Recruiting.
** Data for the “homegrown” metric courtesy of Leopard Solutions.
*** 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.