What’s the point of law firm rankings?

June 23, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

We get a lot of e-mails from law firms touting their ranking on a list of “outstanding” firms by a publication or naming them third-largest overall according to some survey. We don’t publish the rankings in our paper because we just don’t have available space to do so, and we don’t want to inadvertently leave out a law firm on a particular list whose marketing department didn’t happen to send us a press release.

And honestly, what’s so significant about a ranking if it seems like every big law firm in the state is ranked on the same list? Really, a lot of these lists are quite subjective. How do you determine who is “outstanding” or “super?” My definition of “super” might not be the same as those who compiled the list.

We get these notifications from the firms because we are a legal newspaper, but I can’t recall seeing a mainstream media outlet write a story about an Indiana firm making a national list because its attorneys were highly rated by their peers. If these lists are for the benefit of the client to make the firms stand out from the rest, the law firms aren’t doing a very good job of getting that notion out in the public.

Even if John Q. Public comes across the latest ranking of the largest litigation firms in the country, I doubt whether a firm comes in fourth or fourteenth makes too much of a difference to someone who is looking for a quality law firm that he can afford to take on his case.

These lists seem more like bragging rights for the legal community. They post the press releases about the ranking on their Web sites to call attention to the fact that they are one of only a handful of Indiana firms to make this particular list, or maybe even the only one. When there are so many lists compiled by various publications, and marketing and consulting firms, it’s easy to glaze over the results because you know you’ll see a list with similar criteria with different results in the near future on another firm’s site.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Jennifer, thanks for sharing your thoughts on such lists, and the vanity among the firms that often go with it. As most know, such lists are often designed for one primary reason - to sell advertising. They have little to no useful purpose, particularly as the public goes. Some law firms are very good at patting themselves on the back and spending a lot of money and attention telling others how great and how super they are. Studies do show that consumers and other lawyers in general (including potential referring lawyers) do not look kindly at such self-promotion and arrogence. In the end, a good marketing effort should have your clients telling others how good you are. If you have to pay to do so, you should probably be re-visiting your marketing approach.

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT