INTRODUCTION: In 1995, Harvard Law students Suzanne Nossel and Elizabeth Westfall designed a project aimed at discovering what it was like to be a woman at the top law firms in the United States. Gathering funds from Harvard faculty members and alumni, they mailed out the first Presumed Equal survey to women at 57 law firms across the country. Over 600 female attorneys responded to the survey and Suzanne and Elizabeth compiled the responses into the first edition of Presumed Equal, which sold over 1,000 copies. The interest generated by law firms and survey participants, as well as media outlets including The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Times, and National Public Radio, led to the publication of the second edition of Presumed Equal in 1998. The second edition surveyed 77 law firms and garnered nearly 1,225 responses. The impact of the first two editions of Presumed Equal was nothing short of revolutionary. Not only did the Presumed Equal project call attention to general trends in disparate treatment that many women experienced at their various law firms, but also it highlighted specific weaknesses that plagued particular firms. Many law firms used Presumed Equal as a source to learn about their own deficiencies and also turned to the book as a guide as to how to remedy them. A number of firms responded by instituting Women’s Initiatives or Diversity Committees focused on recruitment, retention, and promotion of female attorneys. The book also rapidly became an invaluable resource for law students seeking candid observations about a particular firm’s culture and advice about how to succeed in the profession. Women were able to harvest information and insights that they might not receive from probing interviewers or poring over promotional materials. The book facilitated an honest discourse between women attorneys and attorneys-to- be, allowing the former to counsel the latter on which firm environments would be conducive to achieving their personal goals, whether it be making partner, finding a mentor, or balancing firm life with outside endeavors. No one had ever compiled such frank, firsthand accounts on such a wide array of top law firms. We aspire to build upon the successes of the previous editions by striving to provide open, honest information about women’s experiences at top law firms. We mined nearly 4,000 responses from over 150 offices, using the responses both to distill some general professional trends as well as to disseminate stories that capture personal experiences. We have allowed our respondents to speak in their own words, choosing excerpts that poignantly express the sentiments of a significant number of responses. Most often, our respondents were not unanimous in their assessments of a firm. Rather than attempt to impose a uniform gloss, we have highlighted the differences in views and presented thoughts from each perspective. We summarize or edit responses only when necessary to protect a respondent’s identity. In this neutral, anonymous environment, our respondents were able to offer sincere praise and level specific criticisms in a way that they are not at liberty to do during an initial interview or callback visit. By providing a forum for this commentary, we hope to assist employment candidates in obtaining thoughtful, candid information about their prospective employers that is unavailable anywhere else. An equally important goal for this third edition is to continue to facilitate a conversation between law students, practicing attorneys, and leaders about issues that are important to women. We believe that projects like Presumed Equal can instigate positive change. Many women who responded to our survey previously participated in past editions of Presumed Equal. For these women in particular, the survey allowed them to contemplate the progresses and pitfalls of their particular firm’s diversity initiatives. It is gratifying for us to note that even prior to print, this project has already generated a substantial amount of personal reflection and interpersonal dialogue; hundreds of women have contacted us to offer personal stories, express their excitement about the project, or ask questions about methodology. Hopefully the book itself similarly serves as a source of enthusiasm and empowerment for our readers, sparking increased informed discussion of women’s issues. After all, most of the concerns that prompted Suzanne and Elizabeth to write Presumed Equal are just as relevant today as they were 10 years ago. As leaders of the Women’s Law Association and board members of the Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, we often ask our members what kind of programming they would like these groups to offer. In addition to expressing interest in academic “tip” sessions and networking opportunities, members repeatedly ask for events focused on exploring ways women can ensure success in the law firm environment. They want to know if they will be treated on par with their male colleagues, receiving comparable assignments and mentorship opportunities. They want to know the feasibility of raising children while climbing the partnership ladder. They want to know whether working part-time, because of familial demands or the desire to pursue other interests, is a real option for those wishing to retain rewarding professional careers. While these are certainly not the only issues that concern female law students—nor are they issues that concern only female law students—there is a paucity of information available to those women especially interested in learning more about these aspects of life at a law firm. Unfortunately, even the most assertive law students may find themselves silenced in their inquiries on these gender-charged topics. Generally, we were told in school not to ask pointed questions at the initial screening interview, but to wait until we had a callback or offer for summer employment in hand. However, learning about such important information in the final stages of one’s job search process is less than ideal. Moreover, many women are not comfortable asking these questions at any stage as it can undermine the perceived goal of the interview process: getting a job. Interviewees try to present themselves as motivated, hardworking, enthusiastic potential employees interested in a long-term legal career. Asking questions about the availability of flexible work arrangements, maternity leave, and the impact of billable hours requirements on life outside the firm are thought to rebut assertions that one will be a highly-motivated, diligent, and enthusiastic employee. Many women fear being pigeonholed as temporary employees destined for maternity leave or the “mommy track” simply for voicing such an inquiry. Besides, at no stage in the process does law firm interviewing foster an open and honest environment where female law students can get answers to these tough questions about women’s advancement and retention, even if they should dare to ask. Interviewers may be hesitant to “out” any negative qualities about a firm during an interview, as the main goal at that stage of the process is recruitment. Partners in particular benefit from successfully recruiting a top student and may not want to discourage a promising candidate from entering the firm, even if the firm would not ideally suit the candidate’s needs. Additionally, the firm is likely to have applicants interview with satisfied members of the firm, who may genuinely have found the firm to be well-suited to their own needs, and thus might not be well-versed on the areas where the firm needs improvement. To reiterate, our primary goal in writing and publishing the third edition of Presumed Equal is to disseminate candid and accurate information about what it is like to be a woman at the top law firms in the United States. We believe our 4,000 respondents provide this unique insight. While the response to this endeavor has been overwhelmingly positive, it is worthwhile to note that some did criticize the underlying premise of the book. For example, a few respondents wondered why our survey focused solely on women, when work, family, and diversity concerns apply to both men and women. We agree with the premise of this critique. However, we also recognize that women still disproportionately perform most child-rearing and homemaking duties in our society, causing them to disproportionately feel the burdens of work-life balance issues. Moreover, we stress that despite the gendered focus, our findings should still be of value to men who struggle with work and family conflict, as well as the other issues addressed in the survey. Indeed, many of our male classmates have expressed as much interest in the findings as our female peers. Ultimately, the way a firm treats all of its employees says much about the quality of the firm, and we hope that this book proves useful to all students seeking to understand a particular firm. That said, other survey respondents resented our questions about work and family because they believed it minimized the reality that women (and men) without families also suffer intrusions on their personal lives. We do not intend to imply—nor do we personally believe—that women with families are the only ones who struggle with work-life balance dilemmas. Rather, we hope to provide those women who already have families, or those interested in having children while working, insight as to how various firms have responded to family needs. Additionally, women with interests unrelated to child-rearing should still find the information valuable because it necessarily reflects a firm’s response to outside demands on an attorney’s time and its general outlook on the challenge of retaining women in the legal profession. Nevertheless, at least one woman deemed gender in the workplace a non-issue, declaring that “as long as women continue to answer surveys and engage in activities because they are women and not solely because they are lawyers, disparity will continue. I am a lawyer when I am at work; gender is irrelevant, except when choosing a bathroom.” While we wish that we could report that this gender-neutral experience was universal, respectfully, we must conclude otherwise. Objective indicators still show a disparity between the relative power held by men and women in the legal field and indicate to us that gender is still relevant to women’s success. While women have graduated law school at nearly the same rate as men for over two decades, they still make up only 17% of partners at top law firms. Although some may dismiss the disparity as women’s disproportionate lack of commitment to make partner, we cannot. We hope this book is a small step in explaining this disparity. Although many law firms have committed to creating an environment where all of their attorneys can succeed, a regrettable number of workplaces still harbor either subtle or overt discriminatory attitudes toward female attorneys. Again, we hope that by highlighting both the successes and failures of various law firms to address this issue, this project will be able to foster positive change, and some day, women at every firm will be able to work in an atmosphere where gender is a non-issue. As long as women perceive gender to be a relevant characteristic, projects like this will be helpful to those women and informative to all. While our critical respondent may be correct that answering surveys may cause women think of themselves as different, the reality is most women already see themselves as different from their male counterparts. Nor does “different” necessarily imply a better/worse valuation. It simply acknowledges that men and women are different, but equally capable. Even for those women who do not see themselves as different from their male counterparts, many male attorneys perceive women as different and treat them accordingly. This book does not require any reader or respondent to take a side in this gender consciousness debate but rather allows anyone interested in learning about how real women perceive the legal profession to explore their reflections. We feel that it is a worthy pursuit in and of itself to examine whether and at which firms female attorneys feel they have opportunities to succeed that are equivalent to those enjoyed by their male counterparts. We work from the assumption that more information is better. Learning that women feel they are succeeding in greater numbers at certain firms, with some insight as to why this may be happening can guide any candidate toward the firm that fits her particular values and needs. This book is not meant to be an indictment of any one law firm, but rather as a compilation of candid evaluations of specific firms. We delight that it is as much a forum to praise firms who actively foster a positive environment as it is a place to highlight problems. Finally, this project of course is not meant to imply that female law students will or should select a law firm based solely on gender-related concerns. When choosing a firm, female attorneys and law students often consider a wide-range of factors, such as a firm’s practice areas, clientele, mentorship opportunities, pro bono commitments, and the quality of assignments they can anticipate. Nevertheless, after reading nearly 4,000 responses, it is clear that long-term professional satisfaction is not based solely on the quality of a woman’s work. At present, the reluctance of a male-dominated partnership to mentor female attorneys, the persistence of gender biases regarding women’s roles, and the tacit penalties that women endure for taking advantage of maternity leave, to name only a few dynamics at play, still profoundly shape women’s experiences within the legal profession. It is especially to the reader who wishes to explore the impact of gender within a law firm through the eyes, ears, and experiences of current attorneys that we dedicate this book.

General Survey Observations Before discussing the content of the responses to the survey, it is important to take a moment to comment on the nature of the survey itself. To our knowledge, this is the largest, most comprehensive survey of women at top law firms. The internet allowed us to distribute the survey to more attorneys than any previous edition and at a lower cost for distribution as well as response. We contacted over 16,000 female attorneys and were thrilled to receive nearly 4,000 responses. Our data covers 105 of the most prestigious law firms in the United States. By allowing the attorneys to remain anonymous, we garnered responses that ranged from being particularly enthusiastic to specifically critical. While no survey tool can elicit responses that exactly illustrate the entire situation in a given environment, we believe the breadth of our sample and candor of respondents provides meaningful, albeit necessarily incomplete and imperfect, information. Even if our survey had been able to collect responses from 100% of the attorneys at each firm, data gleaned from surveys does not necessarily reflect the respondents’ actual thoughts and opinions. Instead, the survey data only tells analysts what the polled group would respond if surveyed. Although these responses may be indicative of the respondents’ actual opinions, there are many reasons why a person would exaggerate or overly emphasize certain things in a survey response. For example, partners must comment on the leadership of their firm of which they themselves are a part, thus introducing the complexity of self-critique. Associates who have been passed over for plum assignments may contend the slight is a result of external bias instead of an actual merit-based decision. Lawyers who have experienced success under current conditions may not have experienced adversity or are particularly prone to believe in the fairness of the hierarchy of which they have risen to the top. As with any opinion-based research, one must be aware of the self-interest of any individual. We have tried to limit this effect by noting whether a response is an isolated sentiment or a widespread trend among our respondents. In analyzing the results of the Presumed Equal survey, we found that partners, on average, tended to be quite positive regarding the status of women at their firm. This could be because partners are simply happier with their situation at the firm than associates and other lawyers because the partners have already “made it.” However, another possibility is that the partners are not expressing their actual opinions, but instead are using the survey as a recruiting device for new or lateral attorneys. Because equity partners, by definition, have a stake in the financial success of the firm, they have an incentive to reflect positively on the firm in their responses. Associates, on the other hand, may be less invested with the firm and therefore more willing to shed light on negative aspects at the firm. Because not every woman in these law firms responded to the survey, the composition of the sample should be analyzed. The respondent pool was not random, and therefore cannot be considered a truly representative sample. Individuals had the choice of whether or not to respond. Accordingly, the people most likely to answer the survey may have been women who were either particularly enthusiastic or particularly disheartened and critical of a firm. Women who were indifferent to these issues at the firm were unlikely to feel passionately enough to take time out of their busy day to fill out a survey of this nature. In the same vein, extremely busy lawyers were less likely to take the survey due to time constraints, irrespective of their feelings about the firm. If these very busy attorneys did take the survey, they might have been less likely to leave extensive comments, and therefore to not express their opinions as fully as attorneys who had more time to devote to the survey. While this book is more case study than representative sample, we believe the breadth and candid nature of the raw responses does accurately reflect the general state of women at top law firms. Accordingly, we have tried to fairly and accurately summarize individual responses and present an impartial summary of our wealth of data.

The Findings Before exploring our findings in the broad-stroked manner that this introduction requires, it is important to realize that there is no such thing as a singular “women’s experience” at any one firm. Respondents from the same office expressed a range of opinions and depicted experiences that may be reflective of their varied backgrounds. Comments and actions that one woman is comfortable with might make another woman cringe. We are not attempting to pigeon-hole all women into one homogenous set of expectations and opinions. Rather, we hope to demonstrate the potential range of experiences an applicant might expect to encounter at any given firm. More importantly, the lack of unanimity in what women expect and want from firms does not mean that firms cannot identify steps that can be taken to increase women’s levels of job satisfaction and performance overall. Rather, it means that such steps must be grounded upon a clear understanding of the spectrum of women’s concerns. The general trends analysis that follows is a non-exhaustive summary of the responses we received from women surveyed about various aspects of their law firm lives for this third edition of Presumed Equal. For greater and firm-specific detail, please turn to the corresponding section of the body of the text.

TRAINING AND ADVANCEMENT Please describe your perception of the prospects and patterns of advancement for women at your firm. Are women as likely as men to advance to equity partnership? To non-equity partnership? In your view, what factors are central to the advancement of women within the firm? (Please comment on allocation of assignments, review criteria, availability of training, reasons for attrition, etc.)

The responding attorneys mentioned several factors that determine whether an associate makes partner, including the quality of work, commitment to the firm and to clients, and ability to develop a book of business. The vast majority of women indicated that they are as likely as their male counterparts to receive the appropriate training opportunities necessary for advancement. Aside from more general comments about the amount or quality of the training a firm offers to all of its associates, very few respondents felt that the formal training they receive differed based on gender. There was a much higher variance among responses with regard to women’s ability to advance to partnership. At some firms, respondents indicated that there is a dearth of opportunities for women—women do not receive the plum assignments, are not sought out for mentoring, are passed over for important client development events, and feel generally excluded by a pervasive “boys’ club” atmosphere. In sharp contrast, at other firms, associates and partners reported that their chances of advancing to partnership status are equal to those of their male counterparts, provided they remain at the firm long enough. Attorneys almost universally cited the higher attrition rate of women as the main reason that there are so few female partners. Because fewer women remain at law firms long enough to reach the partnership decision, the reality is that fewer women advance to partnership. Many attributed the disparity between advancement opportunities available to women to the stunting or slowing effect of family constraints on women’s career paths. It is important to note that there are different perceptions of why women leave law firms. Senior attorneys, especially partners and counsel were more likely to assert that young women are “pulled” out of legal careers by other interests, such as raising children. Younger attorneys, however, often indicated that women are “pushed” out of the legal profession because many firms are not willing to accommodate their needs when they have children. Children were the most frequently discussed source of attrition. An overwhelming number of respondents commented that it can be incredibly difficult for a woman to make partner if she chooses to have children. Although there were many examples of women who had made partner while raising a family, there were even more respondents who felt that this was not a viable option for most women. A significant number of women commented that in order to advance to partner, a woman with children must have a good support system such as a stay-at-home husband or at least one nanny. This perception varied by firm, and those firms who reported higher numbers of female partners or successful flex-time programs also tended to report higher rates of women with children being promoted to partnership.

ATTITUDES AND ATMOSPHERE Is your firm a comfortable place for women to work? Is there overt or subtle gender discrimination? Have you experienced any form of sexual harassment, including being “hit on” by other attorneys or being subjected to sexually explicit stories and jokes? If you have experienced this behavior, was there someone in the firm you could go to? Is it necessary to ignore or tolerate this behavior in order to advance or be accepted at your firm? (Please comment on social interactions between men and women, dress code, “the boys club,” the tone set by firm leadership, etc.)

Encouragingly, many respondents had positive things to say about the atmosphere at their firms. These women gave glowing reports about the training, quality of mentoring, and client development opportunities they have received from both male and female partners. At some firms, associates felt that the directed efforts of women’s initiatives and diversity committees resulted in women receiving even more mentoring and client development opportunities than their male colleagues. In addition, the vast majority of partner respondents indicated that their mentors had been men. Women’s comments on sexual harassment varied dramatically by firm. Generally, most respondents stated that their firm was a comfortable place to work and they had never experienced or witnessed overt sexual harassment. A smaller number of respondents commented on examples of overt sexual harassment, but this was not the norm. The vast majority of respondents did not comment on the firm’s response to past reported incidents of sexual harassment. It is not clear if these women were unaware of any past incidents, unsure of how the firm dealt with past incidents, or simply did not want to disclose knowledge of past incidents for fear of identifying themselves as the perpetrator or the victim. Those women who did discuss particular incidents frequently requested that they not be quoted. Most firms tended to have a formal system in place to address any inappropriate incidents that may arise. However, attorneys reported varying degrees of ability and likelihood to report an incident of sexual harassment. Some women claimed to know exactly who to talk to, and exhibited confidence in that person’s willingness and ability to treat the situation with the requisite amount of seriousness. Other attorneys admitted they did not know to whom they would bring a complaint of this type or complained that the designated ombudsmen was not sufficiently impartial. Finally, some women believed that regardless of the firm’s protocol for handling sexual harassment, the advisability of reporting an incident was inversely proportional to the status of the offender within the firm. Respondents were much more likely to report the presence of subtle gender discrimination within their firms. As one respondent so aptly put, “subtle gender discrimination exists and of course because it’s subtle, it’s hard to ‘capture’ it in words or anecdotes. It takes the form of making observations that a woman seems less available or less committed after a few absences for sick children or volunteering at school or the like— even though the woman’s billable hours are fine and the projects are timely and even though her male counterparts leave every day for a run, and leave many days for golf. This ‘perception’ problem is so subtle.” Although this perception varied by firm, many women stated that they receive less informal mentoring from male partners or are excluded from firm-sponsored client development outings such as sporting events, simply because they are women. Most of these women attributed the disparate treatment to men’s increased comfort level with other men or a desire to avoid any appearances of impropriety. However, there were a few firms where specific male partners were noted as only working with female associates “as a matter of last resort.”

WORK AND FAMILY: FLEXIBLE WORK ARRANGEMENTS Are flexible work arrangements, including reduced schedule and flex time, considered to be legitimate and viable options for women at the firm? Does adopting such a schedule adversely affect, or defer, one’s prospects for advancement? Are these arrangements utilized by women at the firm? By men? By partners? (If you have taken advantage of such arrangements, please describe your experience.)

The availability and viability of alternative work arrangements varied tremendously between firms. At some firms, attorneys were skeptical regarding the use of flexible work options and noted that these arrangements were only available on a case- by- case basis. Attorneys also recounted stories of women requesting these arrangements and being denied, or of women being strongly discouraged from using them. Many respondents pointed out the difficulty of adopting an alternative work-schedule in certain practice areas and cited client demands and expectations as a barrier to the success of part-time work arrangements. However, there were also law firms where alternative work arrangements are commonplace. The firms who appeared to have the most successful alternative work options tended to have a powerful group of female attorneys advocating for viable flex-time arrangements. Based on responses to this survey as well as the data published by the National Association of Legal Professionals: Directory of Legal Employers, it is clear that alternative work schedules are overwhelmingly used by women. A number of respondents indicated that partners and other full time attorneys resent those who utilize parental leave policies and flexible arrangements and view them as burdensome to other members on a team. Nearly every attorney currently working on an alternate schedule cited flexibility and availability outside of the office as key to a successful part-time arrangement. Women’s perception of the advancement opportunities for attorneys utilizing alternative work arrangements varied widely—even within firms. Partners and those women currently working part-time were more likely to say that advancement was possible while associates expressed more doubt. Many women claimed that those who work part-time end up working almost as much as full time attorneys, for less pay. At several firms, respondents referred to part-time work as “career suicide.” It should be noted that, in some cases, if the use of an alternative work arrangement did not itself halt advancement, the marginalization and stigmatization could have effectively the same outcome. More common was the observation that use of an alternative work arrangement would slow or halt an attorney’s advancement. A number of respondents believe that this result is justified: attorneys only working part of the time should not advance at the same rate as their peers who work full time. A few women pointed out the benefits of a pro rata system where attorneys participating in part-time arrangements get credit for their hours and are evaluated for partnership when their hours equal those of full-time associates. It appears that the overall success of a particular firm’s part-time program depends on a number of factors, such as how often it is utilized, if partners are willing to give part-time attorneys interesting assignments, and whether these attorneys are allowed to continue their advancement within the firm. These programs also appear to be more successful in firms who have partners that work part-time, or have worked part-time at some point in their careers.

WORK AND FAMILY: IMPACT OF FIRM’S BILLABLE HOUR REQUIREMENT Describe the impact of your firm’s billable hours requirements and salary/bonus structures on attorneys’ ability to balance work and family. (Please comment on working hours, availability of childcare, sensitivity of the firm to family responsibilities, etc.)

Associates generally provided information about their firm’s hourly billing requirements and reflected on the impact of that requirement on their lives outside the firm. Regardless of the actual number of billable hours required, nearly every firm had both women who reported that they were happy with the requirement and others who claimed that achieving a balance was difficult if not impossible. Most women did not attribute the difficulties of work/life balance to their law firm, but to legal practice in general. Some respondents also pointed out that the ability to have a life outside of the office can vary by practice group and partner. Invariably, attorneys explained the impracticalities of raising a family while also developing a law career. Respondents also frequently revealed that women who became partners while raising a family required large amounts of assistance in the process, either through use of nannies or with a stay-at-home spouse. Interestingly, stay-at-home husbands appear to be more common than they once were. Additionally, firms are increasingly offering emergency childcare but few provide on-site day care facilities.

DIVERSITY Is the firm a comfortable and supportive environment for women attorneys of in terms of race, ethnicity, disability, and/or sexual orientation? To what extent does the firm demonstrate a commitment to diversity? (Descriptions of personal experiences are appreciated.)

Although most respondents indicated that their law firms are predominantly staffed by white males, many of them felt that this was due more to the overall composition of the legal profession rather than the result of any overt or covert hiring policies adopted by their law firms. Numerous attorneys pointed out that although firms are successful in hiring diverse associate classes, retention is a significant problem. Almost every firm appears to have instituted diversity initiatives or diversity mentoring programs but respondents were skeptical about the success of such programs. While most firms appear to be proactively recruiting diverse associate classes, the lack of increasing diversity at the partnership level led a number of attorneys to conclude that their firm’s diversity efforts are mostly window-dressing and not rooted in any overwhelming desire to promote diversity in the partnership ranks. Some women attributed the continuing attrition rates of minority attorneys to a lack of partner role models while others concluded that diverse attorneys, male and female, are also excluded from the predominantly white “boys’ club.”

BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND NETWORKING Does the firm provide opportunities for women to develop client relationships? Are women as likely as men to be asked to engage in business development and networking opportunities, including client events and outside speaking engagements?

Respondents generally agreed that women struggle with developing books of business and networking more than their male counterparts. However, attorneys differed on the cause of this disparity. In some cases, attorneys attributed the inconsistency to inherent personality differences between the sexes while others blamed the “boys’ club” nature of their firm, claiming that men are more likely to help other men network, and that male associates are more likely to inherit a male partner’s book of business. Other respondents traced the problem to their predominantly male clients who are still more comfortable working and interacting with other men. Respondent’s from New York frequently cited the “frat boy” personalities of their young, white, male banker clients as impeding women’s ability to develop professional relationships. Encouragingly, many firms have established Women’s Initiatives aimed at helping female attorneys build books of business and network with potential business clients. The successes of these programs varied by firm and by practice group. Many respondents indicated that these initiatives still have a long way to go, complaining that their firm’s female-oriented business development events consist solely of shopping outings and spa appointments which only help them network with other women. Nearly every respondent noted that most junior associates are not given many business development opportunities, regardless of gender. However, senior attorneys pointed out that women especially, must be proactive in developing their own client relationships and business opportunities.

MENTORING Describe any formal or informal mentoring programs. What is the mentoring program like at the firm? (Please comment on the availability of mentoring and women’s access to such mentoring)

Mentoring is a critical factor in an associate’s advancement within a firm. To this end, most law firms have instituted formal mentoring programs aimed at giving associates access to partner mentors. Although there was only a modest variance in the structure of mentoring programs in the law firms surveyed, the perception of how successful these programs are fluctuated significantly between firms and among respondents within a firm. Firms with formal mentoring programs often pair incoming associates with an associate mentor as well as a partner mentor. Most firms do not have prescribed “mentoring events,” rather, they allow the participants to decide their own level of involvement. It appears that the formal mentoring programs are primarily intended for junior associates, although a few firms indicated that these formal relationships continue all the way up to partnership level. In only a small percentage of firms were mentors assigned along gender lines. Because the success of these formal mentoring relationships is entirely dependent upon the individual participants, it is difficult to generalize about their impact on women’s career development. A number of firms have also created women’s groups geared toward promoting the interests of women within the firm and providing mentorship to female associates. These groups received mixed reviews regarding the frequency and quality of events offered and associates generally indicated a desire for increased interaction with female partners. A surprising number of firms have not instituted a formal mentoring program and instead rely upon associates and partners to form their own informal mentoring relationships. This practice would seem to disparately impact female associates, because there are statistically fewer female partners in law firms, leaving female attorneys with a scarcity of female role models and mentors. Although female partners and associates acknowledged that valuable mentors can also be male, many associates asserted that male partners are reluctant to develop mentoring relationships with them because they wish to avoid an appearance of impropriety. Moreover, many respondents noted that people naturally develop relationships with people who are similar to them, resulting in male partners more often mentoring male associates. However, it is clear that men can and will mentor female associates and that female associates must reach out to male partners to develop these relationships. In fact, most of the female partners who responded to the survey cited their most valuable mentors as having been men. The most significant theme that emerged from the responses in this section was the need for female attorneys to be proactive and aggressive in going after what they want or need within the firm. Female partners repeatedly stated that associates need to ask for important assignments and to seek out the advice and mentorship of senior attorneys. Although they admitted that informal mentoring relationships can be difficult to develop because they usually require younger attorneys to approach busy partners, most partners indicated that they would be open to mentoring associates informally, but that the associates must take the initiative.

FIRM LEADERSHIP Are there women in positions of leadership in the firm? (Please comment on membership on key firm committees, pay of senior attorneys, key client relationships.) How are these women perceived by their male colleagues and by other female attorneys? Have they played a role in promoting the opportunities and quality of life of women attorneys?

It has been widely publicized that only 17% of partners at law firms are women. In other words, after more than two decades of men and women graduating law schools in nearly even proportions, men still hold 83% of the partnership positions. Because there are statically fewer female partners than male partners, respondents uniformly indicated that there are fewer women than men involved in firm leadership or whom they consider to be powerful partners. Even though there are fewer female leaders and power players, there was quite a range of opinions about the satisfactoriness of those women who have risen to the top. At some firms, it is apparent that female partners work together to create an environment where women are more likely to feel comfortable and successful. Unfortunately, there were not nearly enough firms that fell into this category. A more common trend is that even though there may be women in positions of leadership and power, associates often perceive these women as tough, demanding, and unconcerned with the difficulties young women face in modern legal practice. It is difficult to tell whether this perception reflects a bias on the part of the associates or whether partners are truly unsympathetic to the challenges faced by female associates.

METHODOLOGY

DETERMINING WHICH FIRMS TO INCLUDE Before concluding this introduction and moving to the results of the survey, we feel it is worthwhile to briefly explore the methodology we employed to obtain this massive body of data. First of all, in order to determine which firms we would contact to participate in the third edition of the Presumed Equal survey, we consulted The American Lawyer and Vault Guide to the Top 100 Legal Employers, and, based primarily on size and prominence in the legal profession, chose an initial sample of firms we felt would best meet the informational needs of law students. In choosing the final list of firms, we made a decision to expand the scope of the previous editions in two important ways. First, the earlier editions only sent surveys to each firm’s headquarters. With law firms’ current propensity for mergers and acquisitions, many large firms have more than one large office. As a result, for a number of firms, we sent surveys to more than one of their offices, based on the criteria discussed below. A second expansion of the project pertained to the minimum office size. Although the previous editions only included headquarter offices with over 50 women, we included any office of the firms we had identified that had at least 40 female attorneys. We wanted to increase the number of offices surveyed while still keeping the office size large enough to protect the anonymity of the respondents. We used the NALP Directory of Legal Employers to determine which of the firms in our initial sample had offices with more than 40 women lawyers, and included all of those firms in our list of firms to contact. We also included two firms—Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP and Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP —which did not have any offices in the United States with at least 40 women attorneys because of their regional prominence. Using these criteria, we contacted a total of 116 firms, and a total of 175 offices. The information provided in each firm report is courtesy of the NALP Directory Online (accurate as of 2/1/06) to which employers self-report a variety of data, including gender, diversity and part-time employment statistics. In a few instances where this information was not available on NALP’s directory, the information was provided directly to us by the firm.

DISTRIBUTING THE SURVEY The authors of the earlier editions mailed the survey directly to the attorneys. However, we felt that we would get a better response rate if the firms endorsed and distributed the survey for us. As a result, we contacted the recruiting department in each office that we had identified to participate in the survey. The response from the recruiting departments was mixed, although positive overall. After we sent the initial email, a number of firms had questions that resulted in follow-up correspondence. Ultimately, sixty-five firms agreed to distribute the survey on our behalf. Because of technology issues, a few firms asked us to distribute the survey for them, after their recruiting department sent emails to their female attorneys encouraging them to fill out our survey. A number of firms never responded to any of our emails. We sent a minimum of three emails to each recruiting department to request their assistance. If the second email went unanswered, we looked through firm directories for female partners—preferably Harvard Law School alumnae—who had worked with gender issues in any capacity and contacted them directly. This approach had overwhelmingly positive results, and resulted in several firms agreeing to distribute the survey. Finally, there were eighteen firms that affirmatively declined to help us distribute the survey. The firms that refused to distribute the survey on our behalf were: Alston & Bird LLP, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Baker Botts LLP, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP, Duane Morris LLP, Gibson, Dunn & Crucher LLP, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Kaye Scholer LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP, Linklaters, Venable LLP, Nixon Peabody LLP, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, McGuireWoods LLP, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, Powell Goldstein LLP and Stoel Rives LLP. For those firms, and the firm that never responded to our three emails, we compiled email addresses from the firm’s website and distributed the survey directly to the attorneys. This was an imperfect process for a few reasons. First, the firm’s website often provided an incomplete list of female attorneys (such as leaving off first year associates). Second, determining the gender of an attorney was difficult at times, since a number of firms do not include pictures of the attorneys and a number of names were quite unique. Third, six law firms did not list email addresses on the website and thus we were unable to distribute the survey (Greenberg Traurig, Latham & Watkins, Linklaters, Nixon Peabody, Coudert Brothers, and Allen & Overy). Finally, because this process involved compiling thousands of email addresses by hand, errors were inevitable. In the end, we distributed surveys directly to approximately 7,000 attorneys in approximately forty-five firms. Because our initial request for participation only targeted offices with more than 40 women, many of the firms that chose to help us distribute the survey had other, smaller offices that were not initially invited to participate. A number of recruiting departments asked if their smaller offices could also participate in this project and we agreed. To be fair, we notified all of the firms who distributed the survey for us and let them know that they could include additional offices. Twenty-five firms elected to include all of their offices.

THE DOUBLE BLIND PROCESS One of the benefits of having the law firm distribute the survey for us was the guarantee of anonymity for the respondents, which we ensured by means of a password system. Respondents were directed to a website and in order to participate were required to enter a unique, individualized password. The password also ensured that each attorney actually worked at the firm she named on the survey. The password system worked as follows: First, we sent our contact at each firm a spreadsheet with sufficient passwords for each attorney participating in the survey. The firm then filled in the spreadsheet with all of the women’s email addresses, and completed a mail merge which automatically emailed the survey link and a unique password to each woman. Because we never saw the completed spreadsheet, we could not associate any of the passwords with a specific attorney or email address. Similarly, since the firms will never see the raw data responses, the firms also cannot associate any data with a specific woman. When a firm declined to help us distribute the survey, or never responded to our emails, we distributed the surveys ourselves and, therefore, had access to the spreadsheet with the passwords and email addresses. In these cases, after distributing the survey and reminder emails we deleted the spreadsheets and the copies of “sent emails” in our email program. This ensured that no records were kept linking the attorney email addresses to the passwords we used to verify the responses. In several instances, after we self-distributed the survey to a particular firm, the firm’s recruiting office would contact us and express their desire to help. In those cases we asked the recruiting office to send reminder emails to their attorneys encouraging them to respond to our survey. We also learned that at some firms, partners forwarded our email to all of the firm’s female attorneys encouraging them all to respond.

SURVEY DISTRIBUTION PROCESS We noticed a significant difference in response rates between firms that assisted us in the distribution process and firms to which we self-distributed the surveys. Attorneys, not surprisingly, appeared to take internal emails and encouragement more seriously than an email sent from an outsider without firm endorsement. We received quite a few emails wondering if our survey was spam, while organizations we are associated with, such as the Journal of Law and Gender, received emails and phone calls inquiring if this survey was legitimate. The Harvard Law School Dean of Students’ Office also commented that they’d received a fair number of phone calls from attorneys regarding the validity of our survey. All of these organizations were supportive, and informed the individuals who contacted them that our survey was legitimate. However, it is probable that many women did not take the time to make this inquiry and wrote the survey off as spam or not legitimate. We think this is partially to blame for low response rates from firms to which we distributed directly. A firm’s filtering software may have also contributed to low response rates because it is possible that filtering software would classify our survey as spam and block the attorney from receiving it. Whatever the cause, the average response rate from firms for which we self-distributed the survey was 16.11%, while the average response rate of the firms which distributed the survey directly was 26.20%. Additionally, the total response rate for the firms to which we self-distributed the survey was 15.54%, while the total response rate for the firms to which the firm itself distributed the survey directly was 24.74%.

THOUGHTS ON THE METHODOLOGY One of the major differences between the third edition and the previous editions is the shift from a paper survey to an internet survey. By placing the survey on the internet, we hoped to increase the overall response rate as compared to the previous editions. Not only did the internet allow individuals to respond to us quickly and efficiently but also it allowed us to distribute the survey to more attorneys, as we incurred much lower costs for adding offices. While the online format had its obvious—and, we might add, tremendous—advantages, there were also a few pitfalls. Although many of these issues were attributable to user error, we received large number of emails regarding difficulty using the computer software (ranging from the website being down to the survey disappearing from the screen). Although the survey company we utilized was very responsive to these complaints, we acknowledge that these issues were sometimes frustrating to the affected respondents. There were also some frustrations with the survey design. Because we wanted to obtain as much data as possible, we formatted the online survey to require respondents to answer all but three of the agree/ disagree questions. After distributing the survey to thousands of women, we began to hear back from attorneys experienced in designing surveys that this was a poor decision. Many women, especially those new to the firm, used the “Additional Comments” portion of the survey to state their displeasure at being forced to respond to every question as they often stated that they did not have an opinion on the question at hand. Were we to conduct this survey again, we would give respondents the option of not responding to the agree/disagree questions. RANKING Each firm has been assigned a score based on respondents’ answers to agree/disagree questions in the survey. Please refer to the sample survey in the Appendix to see these questions. An answer of “Strongly Agree” was assigned a value of 4, an answer of “Agree” was assigned a value of 3, an answer of “Disagree” was assigned a value of 2, and an answer of “Strongly Disagree” was assigned a value of 1. We then added up each firm’s average score for each question and scaled the result to 100. Therefore, the highest possible score is 100, and the lowest possible score is 25. The actual scores received by firms ranged from 90.34 to 57.25. A firm’s overall ranking is based on the compilation of responses gathered from all offices that are included in the book. In some cases, this score is based on responses from one office, while other firms have information from two or more offices included. The firms are listed in order of ranking on page xli. Realizing that offices of even the same firm can vary greatly between locations, we have also ranked the firms by city. The city scores are based on information collected in responses from that city only. The firm rankings are organized by city beginning on page xlv.

NOTE ON FIRM REPORTS Finally, because typewritten text is more susceptible to errors than handwritten text, we have fixed typographical errors such as lack of capitalization and obvious misspellings in responses. Also, we have not added emphasis to any quotes, so any emphasis (such as a word in all capital letters) that appears in a quote was emphasized in the original response.

PROFILED FIRMS BY NAME: Ranking Firm Profiles Score 1 Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP 90.34 2 Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP 87.00 3 Baker & Daniels LLP 86.15 4 Williams & Connolly LLP 85.80 5 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP 85.62 6 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP 84.62 7 Covington & Burling LLP 83.88 8 Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP 83.78 9 Debevoise & Plimpton LLP 83.37 10 Preston Gates & Ellis LLP 82.83 11 Hogan & Hartson LLP 82.60 12 Steptoe & Johnson LLP 82.49 13 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP 82.46 14 Quarles & Brady LLP 81.64 15 Morrison & Foerster LLP 81.18 16 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 80.92 17 Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP 80.91 18 Arent Fox PLLC 80.63 19 Stoel Rives LLP 80.53 20 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 80.12 21 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 80.08 22 Ropes & Gray LLP 79.59 23 Jenner & Block LLP 79.43 24 Foley Hoag LLP 79.28 25 Dorsey & Whitney LLP 79.14 26 Pepper Hamilton LLP 79.08 27 Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P. 79.01 28 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 78.92 29 Thelen Reid & Priest LLP 78.75 30 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. 78.57 31 McGuireWoods LLP 78.10 32 Andrews Kurth LLP 78.08 33 Fulbright & Jaworski LLP 78.05 34 Powell Goldstein LLP 77.88 35 Jones Day 77.83 36 Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP 77.81 37 Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP 77.78 38 Proskauer Rose LLP 77.40 39 Thompson Hine LLP 77.35 40 Kilpatrick Stockton LLP 77.34 41 Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. 77.15 42 Venable LLP 76.67 43 LLP 76.59 44 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 76.56 45 Barnes & Thornburg LLP 76.47 46 King & Spalding 76.10 47 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 75.59 48 Blank Rome LLP 75.51 49 US LLP 75.50 49 Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP 75.50 51 Baker Botts LLP 75.42 52 Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP 75.41 53 Davis Polk & Wardell 75.29 54 Hunton & Williams LLP 75.23 55 Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP 75.11 56 Arnold & Porter LLP 75.01 57 Sullivan & Cromwell LLP 74.80 58 Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP 74.68 59 Crowell & Moring LLP 74.65 60 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates 74.05 61 Cooley Godward LLP 74.00 62 Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP 73.97 63 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 73.86 64 Bryan Cave LLP 73.84 65 Foley & Lardner LLP 73.81 66 Alston & Bird LLP 73.76 67 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 73.60 68 Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP 73.58 69 Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP 73.55 70 Fenwick & West LLP 73.49 70 McDermott Will & Emery LLP 73.49 72 Goodwin Procter LLP 73.48 73 Reed Smith LLP 73.31 74 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP 73.28 75 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP 73.11 76 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 72.96 77 Dechert LLP 72.60 78 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 72.54 79 Chadbourne & Parke LLP 72.52 80 Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP 72.42 81 Holland & Knight LLP 72.28 82 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP 72.14 83 Kirkland & Ellis LLP 72.05 84 Bingham McCutchen LLP 71.88 85 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 71.74 86 Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz 71.66 87 Troutman Sanders, LLP 71.39 88 DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP 70.09 89 Patton Boggs LLP 69.71 90 O’Melveny & Myers LLP 69.47 91 LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae LLP 69.10 92 Winston & Strawn LLP 69.05 93 Shearman & Sterling LLP 68.96 94 Perkins Coie LLP 68.58 95 Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP 68.45 96 LLP 68.14 97 LLP 67.13 98 Baker & McKenzie LLP 66.39 99 Duane Morris LLP 66.24 100 White & Case LLP 65.71 101 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 65.62 102 Kaye Scholer LLP 65.27 103 Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP 60.89 104 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP 59.18 105 Kelley Drye & Warren LLP 57.25

PROFILED FIRMS BY CITY: City Ranking Firm Profiles Score Atlanta 1 Powell Goldstein LLP 77.88 2 Kilpatrick Stockton 77.34 3 King & Spalding 74.75 4 Jones Day 74.42 5 Alston & Bird LLP 73.76 6 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 72.67 7 Troutman Sanders, LLP 71.39 Baltimore 1 DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP 67.70 Boston 1 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 82.82 2 Ropes & Gray LLP 80.25 3 Foley Hoag LLP 79.28 4 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. 78.57 5 Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP 75.41 6 Bingham McCutchen LLP 73.48 7 Goodwin Procter LLP 73.48 8 Holland & Knight LLP 72.28 Chicago 1 Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP 90.34 2 Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP 81.98 3 Foley & Lardner LLP 80.00 4 Jenner & Block LLP 78.81 5 Jones Day 78.43 6 McDermott Will & Emery LLP 76.48 7 Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP 75.72 8 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 74.58 9 Kirkland & Ellis LLP 72.82 10 DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP 69.42 11 Winston & Strawn LLP 69.09 12 Baker & McKenzie LLP 66.39 13 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates 58.90 Cleveland 1 Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P. 79.01 2 Thompson Hine LLP 77.60 3 Jones Day 65.51 Columbia 1 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 65.18 Dallas 1 Jones Day 82.47 2 Baker Botts LLP 76.00 3 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 74.52 Houston 1 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP 85.62 2 Fulbright & Jaworski LLP 81.17 3 Andrews Kurth LLP 78.08 4 Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. 77.15 5 Baker Botts LLP 74.84 Indianapolis 1 Baker & Daniels LLP 86.15 2 Barnes & Thornburg LLP 76.47 Los Angeles 1 Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP 80.91 2 Jones Day 79.31 3 O’Melveny & Myers LLP 76.28 4 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 72.70 5 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates 70.94 6 Kirkland & Ellis LLP 62.31 Milwaukee 1 Quarles & Brady LLP 81.61 2 Foley & Lardner LLP 72.42 Minneapolis 1 Dorsey & Whitney LLP 79.14 New York 1 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 87.63 2 Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP 87.00 3 Morrison & Foerster LLP 85.05 4 Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP 83.78 5 Debevoise & Plimpton LLP 83.37 6 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 81.15 7 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 80.62 8 DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP 79.28 9 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 78.13 10 Ropes & Gray LLP 78.02 11 Jones Day 77.88 12 Bryan Cave LLP 77.67 13 Proskauer Rose LLP 77.40 14 Clifford Chance US LLP 75.94 15 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP 75.57 16 Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP 75.50 17 Hogan & Hartson LLP 75.47 18 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates 75.47 19 Davis Polk & Wardell 75.29 20 Sullivan & Cromwell LLP 74.80 21 Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP 74.68 22 Kirkland & Ellis LLP 74.35 23 Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP 73.77 24 Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP 73.58 25 Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP 73.55 26 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP 73.52 27 McDermott Will & Emery LLP 73.49 29 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 73.41 28 Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP 73.41 30 Chadbourne & Parke LLP 72.52 31 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP 72.14 32 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 71.86 33 Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz 71.66 34 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 71.28 35 LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae LLP 69.73 36 Shearman & Sterling LLP 68.96 37 Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP 68.45 38 Dewey Ballantine LLP 68.25 39 White & Case LLP 65.71 40 Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP 65.56 41 Kaye Scholer LLP 65.27 42 Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP 60.89 43 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP 59.18 44 Kelley Drye & Warren 57.25 45 O’Melveny & Myers LLP 51.79 Philadelphia 1 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 79.54 2 Pepper Hamilton LLP 79.08 3 Reed Smith 76.56 4 Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP 78.60 5 Blank Rome LLP 74.29 6 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 72.96 7 Dechert LLP 72.60 8 Duane Morris LLP 66.24 Pittsburgh 1 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP 71.91 2 Reed Smith 70.73 Portland 1 Stoel Rives LLP 80.53 Richmond 1 McGuireWoods LLP 78.10 2 Hunton & Williams LLP 75.65 San Diego 1 DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP 71.48 San Francisco 1 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 89.42 2 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 80.81 3 Morrison & Foerster LLP 79.33 4 Thelen Reid & Priest LLP 78.56 5 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 72.84 6 Heller Ehrman LLP 76.59 7 Bingham McCutchen LLP 67.68 Seattle 1 Preston Gates & Ellis LLP 82.83 2 Perkins Coie LLP 74.90 Silicon Valley 1 Morrison & Foerster LLP 86.78 2 Cooley Godward LLP 74.00 3 Fenwick & West LLP 73.26 4 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 72.46 5 DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP 72.37 St. Louis 1 Bryan Cave LLP 73.20 Washington, DC 1 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP 85.80 2 Williams & Connolly LLP 85.80 3 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP 84.62 4 Covington & Burling LLP 84.33 5 Hogan & Hartson LLP 83.27 6 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 83.01 7 Jones Day 82.49 8 Steptoe & Johnson LLP 82.49 9 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 81.97 10 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates 80.97 11 Hunton & Williams LLP 80.80 12 Arent Fox PLLC 80.63 13 Venable LLP 78.60 14 McDermott Will & Emery LLP 76.86 15 Arnold & Porter LLP 75.46 16 Crowell & Moring LLP 74.65 17 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 73.64 18 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 73.44 19 Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP 73.28 20 Howrey LLP 68.14 21 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 68.07 22 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP 66.58 23 Patton Boggs LLP 63.93 24 DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP 62.42