National Jurist -September 2008 - (Page 31) Top 10 hired 100 or more entry-level attorneys. In winter and spring 2007, Vault surveyed more than 18,800 associates at more than 167 major law firms across the country and asked them to rank firms in terms of how prestigious it would be to work for them. An online survey asked attorneys to score each of the 167 law firms on a scale of 1 to 10 based on how prestigious it is to work for the firm. Associates were asked to ignore any firm with which they were unfamiliar and were not allowed to rank their own firm. Over 18,800 attorneys returned anonymous surveys to Vault. In the Best Firms to Work For ranking, Vault analyzed their initial list of 167 firms using a formula that weighed the most relevant categories for an overall quality of life ranking. Each firm’s overall score was calculated using the following formula: 40 percent satisfaction, 10 percent hours, 10 percent pay, 10 percent associate/partner relations, 10 percent diversity, 10 percent formal training, 5 percent information training and 5 percent pro bono. If you are looking for an overall rate of what summer and mid-level associates think of their firm, you can turn to The American Lawyer’s annual survey. Judging from the scores that summer associates gave their firms (see the chart on page 32 and 34), most had a good time and some had a great time, according to the publication. The rankings are based on feedback from more than 7,300 law students, each of whom worked at least three weeks at one of these 169 law firms. Scores are based on nine key areas, including the interest level of the work and how much of it was “real,” the training and guidance, interactions with partners and full-time associates, how well the firm communicated its goals, how accurately it portrayed itself in interviews, how it rated overall as a place to work, and the respondents’ inclination to accept a job if one were offered. All responses were scored on a 5-point scale, with 5 being the highest score. September 2008 THE NATIONAL JURIST 31
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.