2018 Power 100 Law Firm Rankings

Shares25

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.

As a result, the Power 100 is meant to offer a career-minded lawyer's perspective on some of the most prestigious and wealthy firms. Every firm tries to distinguish itself with its "culture," but metrics concerning diversity and promotion tells us more about what it's like to work and grow at a firm. Every firm will tout its profits-per-partner, but looking at leverage and decay tell us more about the overall financial health of a firm.

We hope this list can be helpful to people looking to choose a career, not just a job.

(Please see the bottom of this page for an explanation of our methodology.)

Download your free copy of our report, Findings from the Legal Practice Tools Survey, produced in partnership with Bloomberg Law. Our report provides an in-depth look at what—and how much value—is in today's practice toolkits.

The ATL Power 100 Law Firm Rankings

Rank 2017 Rank Firm Score
1 4 Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz 76.19
2 13 Williams & Connolly 75.8
3 3 Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan 75.69
4 20 Davis Polk & Wardwell 74.37
5 5 Covington & Burling 73.67
6 8 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 73.65
7 1 Cravath, Swaine & Moore 72.26
8 2 Kirkland & Ellis 71.27
9 15 Debevoise & Plimpton 71.17
10 7 Latham & Watkins 70.79
11 12 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom 70.37
12 6 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison 70.33
13 22 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr 69.58
14 29 Cooley 69.57
15 34 Munger Tolles & Olson 69.33
16 14 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton 69.32
17 11 Sidley Austin 69.19
18 52 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 68.82
19 9 Boies, Schiller & Flexner 67.84
20 10 Sullivan & Cromwell 67.48
21 39 Perkins Coie 67.37
22 50 Goodwin Procter 66.96
23 19 Ropes & Gray 65.38
24 61 Fenwick & West 65.25
25 45 White & Case 65.14
26 23 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher 64.99
27 24 Irell & Manella 63.95
28 26 Mayer Brown 63.89
29 40 Willkie Farr & Gallagher 62.98
30 30 Morrison & Foerster 62.6
31 48 Susman Godfrey 61.76
32 17 Weil, Gotshal & Manges 61.74
33 36 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 60.02
34 32 Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy 59.99
35   Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunne 59.09
36 41 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 59.05
37 25 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld 58.73
38 44 McDermott Will & Emery 57.58
39 49 Fish & Richardson 57.16
40 46 Sheppard Mullin 57.01
41 42 Jenner & Block 56.84
42 21 Paul Hastings LLP 56.58
43 47 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 55.94
44 43 Cahill Gordon & Reindel 55.56
45 35 Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer 55.29
46 27 Proskauer Rose 55.1
47 28 Hogan Lovells 54.93
48 38 King & Spalding 54.92
49 33 Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson 54.75
50 76 Schulte Roth & Zabel 54.56
51 18 Jones Day 54.56
52 31 Vinson & Elkins 54.45
53 59 Alston & Bird 53.72
54 37 O'Melveny & Myers 53.63
55 67 Baker & Hostetler 53.61
56 92 Dorsey & Whitney 53.43
57 57 Winston & Strawn 52.97
58 65 Crowell & Moring 52.63
59 55 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft 52.57
60 62 Reed Smith 52.45
61 64 Baker Botts 51.97
62 56 Steptoe & Johnson LLP 51.45
63 63 Foley and Lardner 51.37
64 16 Shearman & Sterling 50.83
65 51 Baker & McKenzie 50.35
66 60 DLA Piper 50.19
67 83 Mintz Levin 49.67
68 91 Hughes Hubbard & Reed 49.52
69   Arent Fox 49.35
70 74 Hunton & Williams 48.97
71 97 K&L Gates 48.16
72   Pepper Hamilton 48.08
73   Manatt, Phelps & Phillips 47.87
74 87 Freshfields Bruckhaus Derringer 46.97
75 53 Dechert 45.99
76 54 Davis Wright Tremaine 45.75
77 68 Haynes and Boone 45.54
78 70 Bryan Cave 45.27
79   Kelley Drye & Warren 44.87
80 79 Drinker Biddle & Reath 44.21
81 70 Greenberg Traurig 44.11
82   Clifford Chance 43.85
83 99 Blank Rome 43.84
84 88 Holland & Knight 43.79
85   Carlton Fields 42.18
86 72 Katten Muchin Rosenman 41.85
87   Eversheds Sutherland 41.74
88 78 Nixon Peabody 41.73
89   Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart 41.65
90 84 McGuireWoods 40.36
91   Faegre Baker Daniels 39.69
92   Saul Ewing 39.35
93 71 Venable 39.23
94 89 Brown Rudnick 38.71
95   Norton Rose Fulbright 35.41
96 77 Bracewell LLP 35.12
97   Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel 35.04
98 85 Locke Lord LLP 35.01
99   Fisher & Phillips 34.86
100   Cozen O'Connor 34.76




Methodology

Firms are rated on a scale with 100 possible points:

  • Reputation survey
    “Strength and quality of practice”: 35%
    “Potential employer”: 15%
    The ATL Law Firm Reputation Survey splits “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.)

  • Leverage
    Ratio of equity partners to all other attorneys: 5%
  • Growth/decay
    % change in headcount since 2012: 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%*
    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 ATL survey data.

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.