2017 Regional Law Firm Rankings

Law Firm Rankings

Welcome to the ATL 2017 Regional Law Firm Rankings, presented by Bloomberg Law.

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 Office 100 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 100 rankings and provide a targeted look at the top firms in 9 major markets.

The Top Regional Offices

Rank	Score	Firm
Boston
1	79.82	Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates
2	73.17	Ropes & Gray LLP
3	72.63	WilmerHale
4	65.56	Proskauer Rose LLP
5	64.76	Goodwin Procter LLP
6	63.60	Cooley LLP
7	61.97	Fish & Richardson P.C.
8	53.46	Foley & Lardner LLP
9	46.04	Nixon Peabody LLP
10	44.68	Brown Rudnick LLP
Chicago
1	84.77	Kirkland & Ellis LLP
2	83.03	Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates
3	83.02	Latham & Watkins LLP
4	78.91	Sidley Austin LLP
5	74.09	Jones Day
6	68.70	Mayer Brown LLP
7	66.66	Ropes & Gray LLP
8	62.56	McDermott Will & Emery LLP
9	61.65	Baker & McKenzie
10	61.47	Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
11	58.15	Jenner & Block LLP
12	56.58	Winston & Strawn LLP
13	54.40	Foley & Lardner LLP
14	52.27	Perkins Coie LLP
15	49.35	Reed Smith LLP
16	44.95	DLA Piper
17	44.24	Holland & Knight LLP
18	43.41	Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
19	42.19	McGuireWoods LLP
20	42.02	Bryan Cave LLP
21	41.96	Greenberg Traurig, LLP
22	39.94	Schiff Hardin LLP
23	39.85	Seyfarth Shaw LLP
24	38.65	Dentons
25	36.17	Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
DC
1	80.76	Kirkland & Ellis LLP
2	79.05	Williams & Connolly LLP
3	78.16	Latham & Watkins LLP
4	77.48	Covington & Burling LLP
5	75.66	Sidley Austin LLP
6	75.44	Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
7	75.21	Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
8	74.22	Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates
9	72.90	Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
10	69.31	Ropes & Gray LLP
11	68.94	Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
12	68.80	Jones Day
13	68.57	Arnold & Porter LLP
14	68.31	Paul Hastings LLP
15	65.32	WilmerHale
16	65.28	Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
17	63.14	Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
18	63.03	O'Melveny & Myers LLP
19	63.01	Mayer Brown LLP
20	62.90	Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
21	62.25	Morrison & Foerster LLP
22	62.14	Jenner & Block LLP
23	61.84	Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
24	61.55	Hogan Lovells US LLP
25	60.99	Winston & Strawn LLP
Dallas
1	81.28	Sidley Austin LLP
2	80.29	Jones Day
3	73.36	Vinson & Elkins LLP
4	71.48	Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
5	63.56	Baker & McKenzie
6	63.00	Baker Botts LLP
7	62.95	Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
8	62.08	Fish & Richardson P.C.
9	54.90	Hunton & Williams LLP
10	44.13	Haynes and Boone, LLP
11	40.76	Locke Lord LLP
12	38.91	Thompson & Knight LLP
13	38.75	Dentons
14	33.94	Winstead PC
15	24.79	Strasburger & Price, LLP
Houston
1	78.12	Latham & Watkins LLP
2	70.74	Jones Day
3	69.40	Vinson & Elkins LLP
4	68.87	Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
5	63.34	Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
6	60.74	King & Spalding
7	59.37	Baker Botts LLP
8	57.88	Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
9	56.71	Norton Rose Fulbright
10	48.96	Bracewell LLP
11	48.94	Greenberg Traurig, LLP
12	48.39	Baker & Hostetler LLP
13	46.62	Haynes and Boone, LLP
14	38.62	Andrews Kurth LLP
15	37.61	Winstead PC
Los Angeles
1	81.34	Kirkland & Ellis LLP
2	77.31	Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
3	77.15	Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates
4	76.48	Latham & Watkins LLP
5	70.91	Sidley Austin LLP
6	69.48	Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
7	67.55	Morrison & Foerster LLP
8	69.85	Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
9	67.38	Irell & Manella LLP
10	65.90	Paul Hastings LLP
11	64.13	Jones Day
13	62.55	Proskauer Rose LLP
12	62.65	O'Melveny & Myers LLP
14	61.50	Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
15	60.25	Arnold & Porter LLP
17	56.83	Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
16	58.59	Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
18	56.58	Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
20	55.39	Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
21	54.25	Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
19	56.55	Winston & Strawn LLP
22	49.72	Reed Smith LLP
23	49.47	Alston & Bird LLP
24	48.72	Steptoe & Johnson LLP
25	45.37	DLA Piper
New York
1	80.78	Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
2	80.20	Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
3	76.93	Kirkland & Ellis LLP
4	75.96	Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
5	75.15	Covington & Burling LLP
6	74.53	Latham & Watkins LLP
7	74.17	Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
8	73.29	Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
9	73.25	Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
10	72.00	Davis Polk & Wardwell
11	71.58	Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates
12	70.89	Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
13	70.43	Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
14	68.46	Sidley Austin LLP
15	68.42	Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
16	66.24	Shearman & Sterling LLP
17	65.48	Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
18	64.12	Jones Day
19	63.82	Paul Hastings LLP
20	63.14	WilmerHale
21	62.99	Proskauer Rose LLP
22	62.37	Mayer Brown LLP
23	62.05	Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
24	61.83	Morrison & Foerster LLP
25	61.66	Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
San Francisco
1	82.55	Covington & Burling LLP
2	81.78	Latham & Watkins LLP
3	80.87	Kirkland & Ellis LLP
4	75.30	Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
5	72.04	Sidley Austin LLP
6	64.21	Morrison & Foerster LLP
7	63.10	Jones Day
8	62.74	Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
9	62.55	Ropes & Gray LLP
10	62.12	Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
11	61.66	Paul Hastings LLP
12	58.59	Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
13	58.28	Cooley LLP
14	58.20	O'Melveny & Myers LLP
15	55.23	Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
16	54.64	Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
17	54.11	Baker & McKenzie
18	49.87	Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
19	49.22	Fenwick & West LLP
20	48.08	Reed Smith LLP
Silicon Valley
1	71.40	Latham & Watkins LLP
2	70.30	Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
3	70.10	Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates
4	63.84	Davis Polk & Wardwell
5	60.99	Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
6	59.67	Jones Day
7	55.37	Morrison & Foerster LLP
8	52.96	Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
9	52.63	WilmerHale
10	52.52	Cooley LLP
11	46.62	Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
12	45.62	Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
13	44.07	Fenwick & West LLP
14	43.96	Goodwin Procter LLP
15	41.71	Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

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: Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, 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.
** 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.