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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT