A Good Deal for Everyone

 We are thrilled with the acquisition of Super Lawyers by Thomson Reuters. The transaction is the ultimate validation of Super Lawyers as the leading lawyer rating system in the country. Both lawyers and consumers will benefit: With Thomson’s extraordinary resources and capabilities, the attorneys named to Super Lawyers will be able to greatly expand their reach to new client and referral sources. And consumers will now have even better access to Super Lawyers knowing the integrity of the rating process will be preserved in keeping with the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Seth Williams: Now The Man is the D.A.

 Five years ago we placed Seth Williams on the cover of Pennsylvania Rising Stars with the headline “The Man Who Would Be D.A..” Well, he did it. On Jan. 5 he takes office as the Philadelphia district attorney, the first African-American DA in state history. 

 

Mark & Kate Plus 8

 Kate Gosselin from “Jon & Kate Plus 8” fame was granted the family home in eastern Pennsylvia and custody as primary caretaker of the eight kids in a no-fault divorce proceeding led by her lawyer Mark Momjian of Philadelphia, a perennial name on our Pennsylvania Super Lawyers list. 

Super Lawyers News: Skadden Arps legend Joseph Flom

Malcom Gladwell, author of the The Tipping Point and Blink has a new book, Outliers: The Story Of Success. We particularly enjoyed the chapter, “The Three Lessons of Joe Flom.” Flom, as many of you know, is the last living named partner of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom, and a perennial name on the New York Metro Super Lawyers list and has been a Top 100 honoree as well. His story is the stuff of legend and Gladwell does his typical expert job telling it.  

Super Lawyers News: First Amendment Lawyer Martin Garbus Defends Authors

 WorldNetDaily reports that First Amendment lawyer Martin Garbus (New York Metro Super Lawyers 2006-09) who has represented the likes of Ronald Reagan, Nelson Mandela and Andrei Sakharov, New York has agreed to defend the co-author of"Muslim Mafia" and his son in a lawsuit brought by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

What? Another Ranking?

 As I mentioned in my last post, Dean David Van Zandt of the Northwestern University School of Law came up with his own ranking of law schools based on the number of graduates named to Super Lawyers adjusted to reflect class size (using 1999 enrollment figures). 

Now Brian Leiter's Law School Report blog takes a crack at it. His ranking is also based on the number of graduates named to Super Lawyers plus some sort of weighted average formula which I frankly don't understand. What both rankings have in common is that they make adjustments based on class size. But they reach very different results. 

For example, Leiter's top ten list is missing three schools that were in Van Zandt's top ten. Texas, number 3 according to Leiter, isn't even in Van Zandt's top 14 (why 14? I have no idea. That's where his ranking ends on the ABL post)

The point is that simply applying a weighted average based on class size doesn't magically produce a "more valid ranking."  I've seen three weighted average rankings adjusted for class size so far (including the test we ran prior to publishing our list) and the results have been all over the board.  

Does Class Size Matter?

Above the Law reports that Dean Van Zandt of Northwestern Law School believes we should have taken class size into account when ranking law schools. Our rankings are based on a simple count of lawyers selected to 2009 Super Lawyers. The Dean ran his own numbers using a weighted average method based on enrollment in 1999. Using this approach, Northwestern rises from our ranking of 18th to 8th in the nation. 

Prior to releasing our rankings, we too prepared a test ranking using a weighted average based on the enrollment figures from the ABA for 2007-08 (we gave a 1/2 weighting to part time students). When we ran the numbers, Northwestern didn't fare so well. In fact, they dropped out of the top 25.

The Dean's approach sounds completely reasonable (although we're not sure what numbers he used). And he is certainly not alone in believing that we should have employed a weighted average approach. But this also illustrates the problem of trying to apply a weighted average based on ever-shifting class sizes over the last 10 to 30 years. It's not as simple and easy as it sounds. Change the enrollment year, change the weight you accord part-time students, and the rankings shift.

We are open to employing a weighted average approach the next time we release our rankings. One method we're studying would be based on total living alums which I'm told is reported by law schools to the ABA each year. This might solve the changing enrollment problem.

As for our head count method-- a straightforward outcome-based measurement of excellence -- I maintain there is beauty in simplicity . 

 

Super Cum Laude: Our First Annual Law School Ranking

 Today Super Lawyers announces the release of our first annual ranking of U.S. law schools. The 2010 Super Lawyers U.S. Law School Rankings is unique in that it ranks law schools based on the number of graduates who are selected for inclusion in Super Lawyers across the country. Only 5 percent of the lawyers in each state are selected to Super Lawyers lists (click here to see our selection process).

We’ve been rating lawyers for nearly 20 years. This puts us in a unique position to shed light on how well schools fulfill the ultimate mission of producing great lawyers.

Most law school rankings look at things like bar passage rates, professor-to-student ratios and the number of books in the library, but they ignore the end product — the quality of lawyers produced. We think it’s like ranking football teams based on athletic facilities, player size and equipment without considering who wins the games.


In the real world — the world of clients and juries and judges — no one cares about your GPA or LSAT score. All that matters is how good and ethical a lawyer you are. That’s the focus of Super Lawyers.


Schools are ranked according to the total number of graduates named to the state and regional Super Lawyers lists in 2009. In the event of a tie between schools, the cumulative peer evaluation and research scores of graduates are used as tie-breakers.


Our approach is simple. We take a snapshot of the top lawyers in the country and ask, “What schools produced these lawyers?” Then we report the results. Our rankings fill an informational gap. It throws a new and unique indicator of quality into the mix. It’s another data point for students to consider before making a big, expensive and life-changing decision.


This methodology produces a list that is very different from other law school rankings: The top three schools on this year’s Super Lawyers list are Harvard Law School, the University of Michigan Law School and the University of Texas School of Law.


Because the attorneys named to Super Lawyers are highly experienced and graduated from law school years ago, the Super Lawyers law school ranking is a trailing indicator of quality. While it’s true that past performance does not guarantee future results, it is an important factor that up until now has been largely ignored.


Regional law schools have also been left out of rankings. U.S. News & World Report, for example, ranks only 100 law schools and places the rest of the schools in the country in either tier 3 or tier 4 without ranking them.


Not everyone is accepted to or can afford to attend a national school. These students need to know how regional schools compare to one another. The Super Lawyers ranking provides this information.


We recognize that schools with smaller graduating classes may be at a disadvantage in our ranking. We considered taking into account class size, but decided not to this year for several reasons: First, we found that class size was not as big a factor as you might think. There were very large schools that ranked low and small schools that ranked high on our list. The quality of graduates, not the size of the school, is what ultimately determines where schools land on our list.

Second, this first year we wanted to keep our methodology simple so that people could easily understand what we are doing. We reward schools that produce the greatest number of outstanding attorneys, period. Our approach is similar to the way baseball crowns a homerun king based on total homeruns without employing a weighted average based on plate appearances.

And finally, there is the practical problem of factoring in class size. The lawyers on our list graduated 10, 20 or 30 years ago. How do you accurately determine the graduation class sizes of nearly 200 schools through the years? Nevertheless, we are open to suggestions on how to improve our list for next year. If you have any ideas, I’d love to hear from you.

 

Super Lawyers offers alternative to U.S. News Law School Rankings

Next week, Super Lawyers will release its first ranking of law schools across America.

This may seem odd at first since Super Lawyers is not in the business of rating law schools. We rate lawyers. The process we use is "sophisticated, comprehensive and complex" in the words of Judge Robert Fall, the Special Master appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court to study and report on our selection methodology. 

We thought, however, it would be interesting to take a snapshot of all the lawyers we selected for Super Lawyers in 2009 and see what law schools produced this cream-of-the-crop 5 percent. One thing that is lacking from other law school rankings is any indication of what type of lawyers are ultimately produced by the schools on the lists.

Our methodology is quite simple: We count the number of graduates from each school on our list and rank the schools accordingly. We don't look at LSAT scores or bar passage rates or the number of books in the library. In fact, we don't look at the schools at all. The only thing we focus on is the end product -- the practicing attorney. 

I'll announce the rankings here next week. You may find a few surprises. 

Revised NJ Ethics Rules Bless Super Lawyers

It's official. The New Jersey Supreme Court has adopted amendments to ethics rules that allow lawyers to mention their inclusion in Super Lawyers and other ratings. The revised rules go into effect immediately. This closes the final chapter of the three-and-a-half year saga arising out of Opinion 39.

It's a good day for consumers and lawyers in New Jersey as the rules now bring the state into step with the rest of the country. 

The rule and comments call for common sense disclosures of the name of the rating service and a reference to where the selection methodology can be found. And of course, the rules prohibit pay-to-play accolades.

None of this affects how we publish. We've always included a detailed description of the Super Lawyers selection process where ever we publish our lists. We want people to understand exactly what we go through in selecting lawyers. 

The only shortcoming with the rules is the required disclaimer, "No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey." As is the case with most disclaimers of this type, you're left to wonder what purpose is served? Is there any evidence at all that without such language consumers would be misled? And if there is no such evidence, why require the disclaimer? 

What consumers really need is information and not disclaimers. Nevertheless, we feel the court has otherwise taken a sound approach in updating its rules.