Law is all about the rankings

September 16, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Another group throws its hat into the ring of law-related rankings with a “best” summer associate program list. Because law students don’t have enough lists of rankings to obsess about.

When thinking about becoming an attorney, depending on when this was, you may have studied U.S. News and Report’s lists naming the top law schools in the country. You could have even chosen your law school (or cut out other choices) based on this list or some other ranking.

Once you get into that law school, if you’re heading toward the path of big law, then you may look at lists like National Law Journal’s top 250, or the American Bar Association’s Best Law Firms for Women, to get an idea of where you’d like to practice.

A website for job hunters, Vault, has now created a list ranking the best overall summer associate programs around the U.S. Vault releases rankings of law firms overall and based on diversity and practice areas, but this is the first time it has released their rankings in this area. They aren’t the first to do so – American Lawyer has ranked summer associate programs for years based on surveys from associates. Only two Indiana firms made American Lawyer’s 2010 list, most likely because they are the only ones whose summer associates responded. Baker & Daniels was ranked first; Taft Stettinius & Hollister was second.

On Vault’s website, you can see their overall ranking for these programs, which were considered the most realistic, the ones that best prepared students, or which ones were the most fun. No firms from Indiana made any of the lists, but it is narrowed down to only the top 25 or 50, based on the category.

What do you think about ranking summer associate programs? Does it put more pressure on firms? Is it needed?

Of course, you want to know – Ropes & Gray in Boston apparently has the most fun summer associate program.

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT