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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Super Lawyers News: Balloon Boy's Father Hires David Lane

 Dscriber.com reports that storm chaser and reality-TV wife swapper Richard Heene has hired Denver attorney David Lane (Colorado Super Lawyers 2006-09). Lane gained national attention when he represented embattled former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill.

 

Perhaps Now We Specialize in Proper Usage

 Attorney Nick Hentoff's recent blog posting starts out by applauding Super Lawyers for sticking up for lawyers' First Amendment rights (Thank you, Nick).

But then he raises the question of whether our website, superlawyers.com, is "Super Misleading" for allegedly misusing the the term "specializes" in reference to attorney practice areas. He doesn't say where exactly where the offending term resides on our site, but instead, cites a passing reference in a North Dakota Ethics Opinion from April 10, 2008 which alleged that our "website states that a search will help in finding a 'Super Lawyer' that specializes in a specific area of law," (State Bar Association of North Dakota Ethics Opinion No. 08-02, page 7).

This statement by the Ethics Committee I found baffling. First, we do not allow, or use the term "Super Lawyer" as alleged by the Committee (the usage is improper on two counts: it is used as a moniker or label, and it is used in the singular. Super Lawyers is a registered mark that is always used by us in the plural form).

Second, we also do not allow our staff to use the term "specializes" unless, of course, the lawyer has in fact been certified as a specialist by an authorized state or federal authority.

I searched and searched and could find no such usage of the term "specializes" on our site. On the contrary, the only reference I could find is in disclaimer language we include at the bottom of every page which says our listings do not certify or designate an attorney as a specialist.

So what was the Committee looking at? Despite our best efforts to police the use of the dreaded "specializes" word, maybe it slipped through the cracks somewhere.

So I put our webmaster on the task to find the offending term. Turns out it was mistakenly included in language written into a meta-tag (for the uniformed like me, meta-tags are the descriptions written by website designers to describe the content of the various pages on a website).  The only place one would ever see the term is not on our website, but in the short descriptions accompanying certain search results on Google, Yahoo and others search engines.  

We have purged the term "specializes" from the meta-tag and have replaced it with the word, "practices." Let the world sleep easier tonight.  

 

 

 

New Jersey Law Journal report potentially misleading

 An item in today's New Jersey Law Journal daily news alert is potentially misleading and needs clarification. The Journal reports:

COURT LIKELY TO EASE, NOT LIFT, ITS BAN ON COMPARATIVE LAWYER ADVERTISING

New Jersey's Supreme Court seems poised to alter its current outright prohibition on advertising in which lawyers compare their abilities to others, probably by requiring that such ads include caveats to potential clients. The Court wants to create a "sensibly balanced rule," Chief Justice Stuart Rabner said Wednesday at a hearing on whether lawyer should be able, within limits, to tout their ratings in publications like Super Lawyers Best Lawyers. But it was clear from the tenor of the arguments and the justices' occasional remarks that comparative advertisements will likely have to be accompanied by some form of disclaimer that "super lawyer" or "best lawyer" designations do not have the Court's blessing.

Reading this, one might infer that lawyers are currently banned from advertising in, or mentioning selection to Super Lawyers (or Best Lawyers) in their advertising because of the comparative advertising rule. That is not the case. Over the past four years, hundreds of New Jersey lawyers have advertised in New Jersey Super Lawyers magazine, or have mentioned the Super Lawyers honor in their advertising or promotional materials. Not a single one of them has been disciplined, or threatened with discipline for doing so. The same can be said of the thousands of lawyers nationwide who advertise or mention their selection to Super Lawyers.

Super Lawyers has been around since 1991. In those 18 years, no court or discipline authority has ever prohibited lawyers from advertising in or about Super Lawyers

So, New Jersey lawyers and reporters, please note: There is no ban on Super Lawyers or Best Lawyers advertising. Never has been and, as long as the First Amendment is around, there never will be.

The only thing the New Jersey Supreme Court has banned is the clumsy and misguided  disaster known as Opinion 39 which itself sought to impose such a ban at the expense of free speech. Click here to read the court's opinion and here to read the report of Judge Fall upon which the court based its ruling. 

 

 

Frank Branson was a lousy waiter, but what a lawyer

In the current issue of Texas Super Lawyers, Frank Branson, a perennial top 10 lawyer on our lists, reveals that being fired from Steak & Ale was the biggest boost to his legal career. Read the complete story of this plaintiff powerhouse. 

Racehorse Still Running

 Racehorse Haynes has no plans to slow down. A member of the Texas Bar since 1956, the 82 year-old legend dispenses some sage advice in the just released 2009 Texas Super Lawyers magazine: The one book every lawyer should read and then re-read every year; how he got his nickname; how he stumbled upon his first courtroom win -- it's all here