I wasn’t going to post at all about The American Lawyer‘s
second annual 20-firm long "A
List," but I’ve had a change of heart, if only because it does
create a bit of a stir.
My resistance to giving it even a smidgin more publicity stems
directly from my reaction—dyspeptic, I’ll admit—to
the selection criteria, which are at once utterly subjective and
snarkily self-congratulatory: "We take seriously the work
and stated values of our audience…we sought a list of core professional
values-values that lawyers proclaim as their own." Spare
me. For the record, the criteria are:
- revenue per lawyer, a relatively hard-to-fudge metric;
- "pro bono," a complete black box whose methodology is not explained;
- associate satisfaction, based on a survey given to 3rd and
4th-years, also a complete black box; and - "diversity," the third black box.
Revenue and pro bono are given
double weighting, the firms are awarded 1 to 200 points
on each metric (from last to first), and the four are summed. Firms
that do not "participate" in the pro bono, associate, or diversity
bake-offs receives zero’s for that category (a score of 100 by
fiat would seem to be more fair, but I told you I don’t like their
premises to begin with).
So what does this prove? To me, merely that the opportunities
for gaming the tournament are especially rich. But to our
good editors, it’s definitive: They have measured "firms
as firms" and identified "the true leaders," "the profession’s
elite." And for the losers, there’s always next year: "we
mean this to be a challenge." Caveat lector.
