Law Firm Rankings

Suing Over Jobs

For the last year, the Education Department and Congress have debated measures of "gainful employment" for graduates of for-profit vocational programs. And media outlets have competed for the best stories about unemployed liberal-arts graduates. But the question of whether higher education can be held responsible for failing to warn would-be students about the poor job prospects of graduates may really be taking off with regard to law schools.

On Wednesday, a New York City law firm filed class actions against two law schools -- New York Law School and Thomas M. Cooley Law School -- charging that the job placement information they released to potential students was sufficiently inaccurate as to constitute fraud. Those suits follow a similar one filed in May against Thomas Jefferson School of Law. All of the suits argue that students were essentially robbed of the ability to make good decisions about whether to pay tuition (and to take out student loans) by being forced to rely on incomplete and inaccurate job placement information. Specifically, the suits charge that the law schools in question (and many of their peers) mix together different kinds of employment (including jobs for which a J.D. is not needed) to inflate employment rates.

All three law schools deny the charges. And Cooley has already filed a defamation suit against the lawyers suing it. But the litigation comes amid a broader debate over whether the American Bar Association and others are doing enough to promote the release of accurate information, and whether there are too many law schools for the current job market.

While legal experts were still examining the lawsuits and were generally not ready to weigh in on whether or not they will succeed, several said that the litigation points to longstanding problems with how job placement has been tracked, and that changes currently under consideration are overdue.

"The fact that you have some serious class action law firms filing suit should give anybody pause," said William D. Henderson, a professor of law and director of the Center on the Global Legal Profession at Indiana University, and a frequent author on job placement issues. "The whole industry hasn't released useful numbers for consumers," he said.

Henderson said that he strongly backed current moves by the American Bar Association (likely to then be adopted by U.S. News & World Report for its rankings) to shift from a standard of being employed nine months after graduation to being employed in a job for which a J.D. is needed. Those suing today (and those in recent years who were disappointed by their success at finding jobs) relied on statistics that didn't exclude those whose "jobs" were fellowships paid for by their law schools, who were in part-time or temporary jobs, or who were in jobs they could have gotten before they went to law school, he said.

Law Firm Rankings are Like Law School Grades

Google Obsessed Lawyers

As more consumers of legal services turn to the web to make hiring decisions, more law firms have become concerned (obsessed) with web presence. Lawyers take pride in ranking for competitive keywords like they take pride in winning summary judgment motions. It’s funny as hell, but also understandable. High organic placement for heavy search terms can drive significant business. Enter the top 3 and you have a Google gifted client base.

So, how do you get your law firm’s website to the top of the queue? Here’s a hint: think back to law school. More specifically, think back to law school exams. Did you get any As? if so how did you do it?

Ok, Ok, I’ll get to the point. You wrote the A law school exam with thorough, deep, unique analysis. You were likely graded on a curve so your answer was better than the guy writing in the seat next to you. You knew your topic, circled it, took it apart and then put it back together. Few would argue against the meritocracy of law school: the cream rises. Well, seeker of organic rankings, the same can be said for the search engines. The web is a meritocracy.

There can be no doubt, especially after Google’s recent Panda updates, that quality content is the primary factor in driving search engine rankings. Show me a law firm that ranks well for any given competitive search term and I’ll show you a firm with a close connection to unique, engaging content that gets an “A” from Professor Google.

Notice I say “connection to content.” I define connection to content as:

a.) Great on-page content

b.) Great on-site content

c.) Great content produced on an off-site blog or affiliate site with heaps of links back to the subject site

Ideally, you’d like to have all three boxes checked. But keep your eye on the ball. Any of these options work because they inspire links (web votes) to the root domain (the URL for your firm). Obviously, great on-page content will be noticed in its niche community and frequently linked to. The specific page will benefit as a result. However, Great overall on-site content will inspire links to the blog or internal pages but to the root domain as well with the effect of boosting the entire site. Lastly, great off-site content will usually mean a powerful, authoritative site that can pass significant “link love” on to its affiliate sites.

Building a Better Legal Profession's Guide to Law Firms, The Law Student's Guide to Finding the Perfect Law Firm Job

Vault Guide to the Top 100 Law Firms

Professionals ́ Perspectives of Corporate Social Responsibility

Vault Guide to the Top Chicago & Midwest Law Firms, 2007

Managing people in today's law firm, the human resources approach to surviving change