Super lawyers, super schools?

November 17, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Move over U.S. News and World Report law school rankings, there’s a new list in town, and it’s from the same people who pick Super Lawyers.

According to Super Lawyers magazine, the University of Notre Dame Law School ranks 43; right behind is Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis at 44; Indiana University Maurer School of Law at 59; and Valparaiso University School of Law at 151.

How did Super Lawyers come up with the top 180 law schools in the country? By taking a look at professional excellence, i.e. the number of “Super Lawyers” graduates by school as opposed to measures of facilities or faculty. The rankings are based on the number of “top attorneys” they pick and what schools those “top attorneys” come from.

If you click on a school’s link, it shows you the “Super Lawyers” who when to that school. Notre Dame has 617; lU – Indy has 567; Maurer School of Law has 552; and Valpo has 139.

That’s it. There are no other reasons listed as to why Notre Dame is a better school than IU – Indy or why Harvard is the best beyond the fact it has 3,568 “Super Lawyers.”

Excuse me if I come across suspicious of this new form of ranking, but when it seems more than just the “top 5 percent” of attorneys are touting that they are “Super Lawyers,” I don’t know how credible the list can be. Add that there’s no other criteria listed to explain the rankings, and it’s just one big advertisement for Super Lawyers. At least the U.S. News and World Report rankings looked at faculty, research, student ratios, and other factors.

“We reward schools that produce the greatest number of outstanding attorneys, period,” says the publication’s Web site about the methodology of these rankings.

Apparently outstanding attorneys are only measured by the “Super Lawyer” recognition.

How much clout can this list carry with future and current law students? Is this going to be something law schools tout to prospective students, or try to sweep under the rug (especially if they didn’t have too many “Super Lawyers” from their school)?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT