TheSocialLawFirmIndex 2018 UPDATED

By Guy Alvarez, Kevin Vermeulen,
and Kayla Johnson
The Social Law

Firm Index
2018
Good2bSocial’s annual study of digital marketing adoption,

use, and best practices in the legal industry, including our
rankings of America’s Top 200 law firms for achievement in
social media, SEO, and thought leadership.
About This White Paper
This annual report aims to determine the effectiveness of law firms’ efforts and includes reviews and rankings
of all firms on the 2018 Am Law 200, which ranks U.S. firms with the highest revenue. We reviewed websites
and presence across all public social media platforms for each firm. We assessed firms’ publicly available
thought leadership content, and their social reach and engagement. And we scored and ranked the effec-
tiveness of their overall efforts in social media across various channels and categories. Our analysis is further
informed by the depth of our experience working with law firms, our familiarity with current conditions in the
legal market, and our expertise in the best practices used across digital marketing channels.
Table of Contents
About This White Paper 1 Twitter Index 25
Executive Summary 3 Feature Profile: White & Case 28
Why The Social Law Firm Index? 7 LinkedIn Index 29
Our Findings 8 Feature Profile: Shumaker,

Loop & Kendrick 32
Feature Profile: Norton Rose
Fulbright 13 Facebook Index 33
Overall Social Index 14 Instagram: Top 8 Law Firm Profiles 36
Thought Leadership Index 17 Looking Back, Looking Forward 38
Feature Profile: K&L Gates 20 Methodology 39
SEO Index 21 About the Authors 40
Feature Profile: Baker McKenzie 24
1 | Social Law Firm Index 2018 Good2bSocial

This year, we have continued with our larger sample size, and the results have reaffirmed our belief that size
does not necessarily matter when it comes to digital marketing success. In fact, some of the most effective firms
on social media are not among the top tier of revenue earners on The Am Law 200.
Meanwhile, a few firms are leaping ahead with more sophisticated digital marketing offerings. We noticed a
surge in video adoption by firm marketers this year. And we found that more firms are crafting client-centric
thought leadership and social media content that aims to address client desires rather than simply touting a
firm’s bona fides. (On Twitter, especially, we saw a major increase in high-quality, non-promotional firm content.)
Clearly, digital marketing plays an integral role in business development for firms. Our ongoing research shows
that large U.S. law firms have continued to increase their use of and reliance on social media and thought lead-
ership content.
In the 2017 Social Law Firm Index, we set out to prove that social media and thought leadership had become
essential to the legal marketing toolkit. We doubled the size of our research sample to include all of the firms
on The American Lawyer’s Am Law 200, and scored and ranked the effectiveness of their overall efforts in digital
marketing across various channels and categories. We found many firms from 101 to 200 on The Am Law 200
were significantly outperforming their much larger competitors in mastering and optimizing their digital efforts
to engage with clients, prospects, the press, and the marketplace at large.
The Social Law Firm Index rankings are based on a proprietary methodology developed to assess the effective-
ness of each firm’s use of digital marketing and social media. As most firms now demonstrate a basic under-
standing of social media, we significantly recalibrated our algorithm for this year’s review to better recognize
and highlight standouts for leading-edge execution within each medium studied. We didn’t want to measure
simply the quantity—how many followers or blog posts a law firm has—but also the quality and usefulness of a
firm’s content and social media messaging.
The Social Law

Firm Index
Executive Summary
The Social Law Firm Index 2018 analyzes how Am Law
200 firms are adopting and applying digital market-
ing in terms of outreach, engagement, and business
development.
Since conducting our original study in 2013, we have

seen a rapid increase in the use of digital technology
by American law firms. Most large firms practicing in
the United States now demonstrate an understanding
of the value and necessity of digital marketing for their
operations.
Although more firms are competing on social media,

not all of their strategies are effective. Some firms
demonstrate a clear understanding of how to properly
harness social media to grow their businesses; many messages and to otherwise engage with clients and
others are missing opportunities to achieve strong constituents. These factors are reduced to numerical
brand awareness and generate new clients. measures, weighted, and incorporated into our algo-
rithm to develop each firm’s rank on the Index.
We measure social media reach, engagement, and
marketing performance on specific social platforms, In addition to scoring and ranking each firm for its
such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram. overall capability and impact, we also break out
We also look at other metrics to uncover and highlight achievement across individual social media channels
digital best practices. and digital marketing disciplines. This includes rank-
ing firms for their performance in thought leadership
The Social Law Firm Index analyzes each firm’s pres- and search engine optimization (SEO) and on the indi-
ence on the internet and across social media and eval- vidual social media channels LinkedIn, Facebook, and
uates their social usage to extend thought leadership Twitter. This approach allows us to delve deeply into
THE SOCIAL LAW FIRM INDEX | 2018 TOP FIVE OVERALL
6 1 2 4 10
1 2 3 4 5
Norton Rose DLA Baker White

Orrick
Fulbright Piper McKenzie & Case
2017 Rank 2018 Rank

the mechanics of integrated digital marketing efforts.
This year’s top five Social Law Firms achieved out-

“
We believe that a law firm’s
most valuable resource is its
standing scores by demonstrating the greatest com-
intellectual assets.
“
prehensive adoption, integration, and use of social
media and content marketing to market and grow
their practices. They are notable for mastering many
of the unique features available on various social media platforms, allowing them to target audiences with mes-
sages and insights in a timely and impactful manner. Their messaging is coherent, consistent, and current across
platforms, and best practices are evident at all stages of execution.
In this study, we closely examine how firms are using digital platforms to communicate and amplify thought
leadership. We believe that a law firm’s most valuable resource is its intellectual assets. And we define thought
leadership as material that, for the purposes of business development, communicates to potential clients and
others information about those assets. These communications can take the form of articles, client alerts, tool-
kits, videos, podcasts, and blogs. The top five law firms in this category effectively and creatively harness their
expertise, reputation, and experience through original content. This year, we found that more firms are adopt-
ing a strong content strategy and placing more of an emphasis on quality over quantity.
THE SOCIAL LAW FIRM INDEX | 2018 TOP FIVE, THOUGHT LEADERSHIP
9 114 67 6 1
1 2 3 4 5
Norton Rose Proskauer DLA K&L

Bradley
Fulbright Rose Piper Gates
2017 Rank 2018 Rank
Superior thought leadership content will have no impact if prospects cannot find it. In 2018, Google has placed
even more of an emphasis on content accessibility and the user experience, meaning that if a law firm’s blog is
difficult to navigate to, it ranks significantly lower in Google’s search results. Top-scoring firms in this category
have easily accessible content.They have also solidified their online relationships to such a degree that many
thousands of other online legal resources, educational institutions, and media outlets regularly link back to con-
tent on the firms’ sites. This provides even larger pathways to draw interested prospects and generate leads.
Links from others also send a signal to search engines to favor firms in search results.

THE SOCIAL LAW FIRM INDEX | 2018 TOP FIVE, SEO
10 2 3 9 4
1 2 3 4 5
K&L Baker Norton Rose Greenberg

Jones Day
Gates McKenzie Fulbright Traurig
2017 Rank 2018 Rank
Most law firms on The Am Law 200 now realize that social media is an integral part of a firm’s overall digi-
tal marketing strategy. Some, however, still appear to reside in the dark ages or refuse to acknowledge best
practices for optimum reach and engagement. Blogs, LinkedIn, and Twitter are essential business development
tools for any firm—when used correctly—but simply including them in a digital arsenal without strategy renders
them worthless.
While the largest firms continue to perform better in terms of reach and overall social media engagement, our
analysis reveals that a number of smaller firms are performing extraordinarily well in terms of engagement and
leadership in individual categories. Take Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick. It ranked No. 131 in our overall ranking,
but No. 2 for Facebook. Another
surprising firm was Bradley, which
jumped to No. 2 in our Thought
Leadership category from No. 114 THE SOCIAL LAW FIRM INDEX | 2018 TOP FIVE, TWITTER
last year.
Certainly, not everyone is rising in the 8 5 6 1 127

rankings. This year, some firms saw
their scores stagnate or decline. We
1 2 3 4 5
tend to see this as a positive devel-
opment. In our view, it means that Norton Rose Baker White
Orrick Cooley
more firms are doing a better job Fulbright McKenzie & Case
of managing their digital marketing
efforts. In an ever-evolving digital 2017 Rank 2018 Rank
marketplace, firms will need to inno-

vate and adapt to remain competitive.

In the next few pages, we’ll analyze and discuss a few of the deeper trends we’ve observed in 2018. We will
highlight what distinguishes the best-performing firms from the worst in the hope of inspiring all law firms to do
more, and do it better.
THE SOCIAL LAW FIRM INDEX | 2018 TOP FIVE, LINKEDIN
48 2 4 15 7
1 2 3 4 5
White Baker DLA Norton Rose

& Case McKenzie Orrick
Piper Fulbright
2017 Rank 2018 Rank
THE SOCIAL LAW FIRM INDEX | 2018 TOP FIVE, FACEBOOK
47 46 56 6 18
1 2 3 4 5
Nixon Shumaker, Loop & White &

Peabody Kendrick Baker Botts Sidley Austin
Case
2017 Rank 2018 Rank

The Social Law
Firm Index 2018
WHY THE SOCIAL LAW
FIRM INDEX?
We study and publish our findings on the
adoption of digital marketing technologies
by law firms to raise awareness about the
value of digital marketing for business devel-
opment. When we first started five years ago,
law firm digital marketing was still in its infan-
cy, and digital marketing strategies weren’t a
reality for many firms.
The state of digital marketing and social me-

dia adoption in our industry has fundamen-
tally changed since we published our first
report. Every Am Law 200 firm is now present
online, and most are active across multiple
digital media platforms. Digital and social
have evolved into essential elements for law
firm marketing.The Social Law Firm Index
measures the effectiveness of law firm reach
and engagement across the variety of online
digital media channels.

Our Findings:
Characteristics of the best performers
VIDEO TAKES OVER

In our last report, we focused on the value of visuals and how they
help attract attention and increase engagement on social media.
This year, we found that law firms are starting to understand that
value. For instance, 90 percent of firms are using images on their
Twitter posts, compared to 75 percent in 2017.
Firms using video
More firms are also using video as a part of their messaging mix. marketing
While video has been a major aspect of the digital landscape for
over a decade, 2018 was a big year in terms of law firms’ adapt-
ing to the trend. A key factor may have been LinkedIn’s debut of
video advertising. In 2017, only 26 percent of firms utilized videos 26%
directly on their sites. When surveyed* this year, 36 percent of law
firms stated that they use video as a part of their digital marketing
strategies. This trend extended across all social networks and firm
websites. 2017
Why is video so important? It’s one of the most engaging forms of
content. In our study, we saw several interesting uses of video—
from O’Melveny & Myers’s “What do you want to achieve?” re-
cruitment video on Instagram to Norton Rose Fulbright’s multi-part 36%
video series featuring expert lawyers discussing hot topics. Firms
like White & Case make video an integral part of their social media
strategy, posting multiple videos a week across social networks to
update clients and prospects in a captivating way. 2018
INTERACTIVE CONTENT IS KEY

We found that 68 percent of law firms measure digital marketing success based on increase in engagement. In-
teractive content is one of the best ways for law firms to facilitate engagement across digital channels like email
and social media. In 2018, we saw a trend toward interactive content such as free tools, polls, and surveys.
Interactive content can be mutually beneficial for both law firms and their clients, which is why it’s important to
incorporate it into your digital marketing strategy.
A few firms stood out in terms of this type of content. Lane Powell, for example, utilizes the underused polling
feature on Twitter, which allows users to answer questions on a particular topic. In the case of a law firm, a Twit-
ter poll can be used to ask followers their opinion about a current event or about a particular legal issue, like
the most difficult aspect of creating a corporate tax plan. Using polls on social media, your website, or through
email can be a quick way to gauge your audience’s opinions on a topic or to discover the challenges they face.

We also saw several firms promote lengthier types of interactive
content, such as surveys. Firms that survey their target audienc- Tip: Interactive Content
es are able to learn more about the industry, as well as produce
well-informed and original research reports for thought leader-
Use interactive content like
ship purposes.
polls, surveys, and free assess-
ment tools to understand your
Among law firms, Orrick is a leader when it comes to interactive
clients and provide them with
content. On its website, you can access a free toolkit full of inter-
future content that you know
active assessments, calculators, and guides. These types of tools
they’ll find valuable.
are incredibly useful to clients, adding value to their experience
with the firm.
THINKING LIKE A CLIENT

The concept of client-centricity is nothing new, but it’s been a slow journey for lawyers and senior partners
to understand and adapt to its significance. However, 2018 has been the year of thinking like a client. In our
research, we saw many more law firms engaging with their clients in meaningful ways in order to provide them
with the insights they need.
All year, Google has been adjusting algorithms to place an emphasis on user intent when it comes to who ranks
first on the search engine. This means that law firms like K&L Gates, our No. 1–ranked firm for SEO, isn’t simply
stuffing keywords into poor content. They have content that their audience is searching for, and it’s crafted in a
way that enables Google to easily find and index it.
On the social media end of the digital marketing spectrum, thinking like a client was seen through large ges-
tures like weekly Twitter chats asking for audience involvement and perspectives, as well as polls and surveys
used to inform content strategy.
Tip: Clients
Use surveys and polls to inform

your content strategy. You can’t
write the right content if you
don’t know what your clients or
prospects care about.
QUALITY OVER QUANTITY

Clients don’t just want to see the awards you’ve won through self-promotional posts; they want to see that you
understand their business and have experience in solving the legal issues they face through thought leadership
content. However, many top Am Law firms still rely on employee achievements and industry awards for the bulk
of their social media messaging.

Our algorithm doesn’t measure only how many blog posts or
social messages a firm has, but also the quality of them. Is the Tip: Quality Over Quantity
information educational and client-centric? Is it a new perspective
that other firms haven’t touched upon? Is it non-promotional and
Aim for at least 70 percent of
original? In this year’s research, we saw major improvements in
your social media messages to
terms of the quality of informational content when compared to
be original, non-promotional
last year’s data.
content like blog posts and
Even on Twitter, firms are being more strategic. They are recogniz- client alerts.
ing the opportunity they have to prove their knowledge in every
message they send. In 2017, only 20 percent of law firm tweets
were original and non-promotional; in 2018, that statistic jumped
up to 51 percent. From this, we can infer that law firms are adapt-
ing to what clients want to see.
SHIFTING PRIORITIES, SHIFTING CHANNELS

The Cambridge Analytica scandal, which arose in early 2018, had
a definite impact on the way that people use and perceive Face- 20% 51%
book. In this year’s research we saw a steep decline in Facebook
engagement and use overall. In 2017, the average number of
posts per day for a law firm was 0.63. In 2018, the average num-
ber of posts per day for a firm was only 0.29—about eight posts 2017 2018
per month. Engagement on the platform was also cut in half when
compared to the previous year.
But data breaches and scandals aren’t the only reasons that firms are abandoning Facebook. Priorities are
shifting. Recruitment has been the primary reason that firms have used Facebook. This still holds true, but
Instagram is the new unsung hero of legal recruitment activity, with a 50 percent increase in the number of firms
using Instagram in 2018. Why? It’s where the millennial talent is. Law firms, we’re finding, are getting smarter
about setting aside those social platforms that don’t reach their target audiences or provide a return on invest-
ment. While Facebook is still effective for law firms trying to reach consumers, corporate law firms are finding
that they’re better off using LinkedIn and Twitter.
.63
Analyze and measure which social networks are the
.29
most effective for your law firm. Then, prioritize the
ones that bring you the highest ROI.
2016 2017 2018

RISE OF PAID SOCIAL
As it becomes harder to reach your target audience on social media platforms, the use of paid social is increas-
ing. Thirty percent of law firms we surveyed* reported using paid social in order to enhance the reach of their
social media messages. Facebook and LinkedIn are equally popular choices when it comes to firms investing in
sponsored content on social. In 2018, it became more difficult for all corporations, including law firms, to reach
their target audiences organically on social media. Decline in impressions and engagement were a direct result
of Facebook’s shift to a friends-before-companies algorithm, which pushes down company page updates on a
user’s newsfeed.
Firms using paid social Tip: Paid Social
If you’re curious about paid social, but don’t want to make a

30% large investment, try boosting posts on Facebook or spon-
soring content on LinkedIn—spending $100 on highly target-
ed advertising can go a long way.
BIGGEST MOVERS 2018 | TOP FIVE MOST IMPROVED LAW FIRMS 2018
Rank Change Rank Rank

Firm 2018- 2017 2018 2017
Locke Lord 92 69 161
Adams and Reese 91 84 175
Kirkland & Ellis 89 77 166
Robinson & Cole 89 79 168
Sidley Austin 87 15 102
CHARACTERISTICS OF WORST PERFORMERS
ABANDONED PROFILES
It’s one thing to shift your law firm’s social media strategy in order to focus on one platform more than the other,
but it’s another thing to abandon a social media identity entirely. A few law firms in our study seemed to disap-
pear from the digital landscape entirely.

Often, when consistency and quality of posts decreased on one channel, the firm seemed to struggle across
all channels. When visitors go to Twitter and see tweets from months ago, their first thought is, what hap-
pened? Digital presence is closely linked to brand perception, and law firm marketers should want both to be
strong.
Newly merged firms also seem to be struggling with digital efforts. Mergers are relatively common in the legal
industry, and they can be an excellent opportunity for two firms to build a strong new brand that incorporates
the strengths of the legacy firms. Our research this year shows that merged firms often drop the ball—ex-
tinguishing strong social media presences and failing to come up with a singular social identity or effective
digital marketing strategy.
MISSED ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Most firms have blogs or client alerts, and many are using social media to share them. However, some Am
Law 200 firms are missing important engagement opportunities that would allow their content to have greater
reach and engagement. For example, when you publish a blog post on your website, you should be sharing
it on all appropriate social channels to reach a bigger audience. We recommend sharing it on multiple occa-
sions—not spamming your feed, but ensuring that you reach different people at different times of the day or
week.
We found that 80 percent of law firms are not utilizing employee advocacy tools within their law firms. This is
a major missed opportunity for law firms to take advantage of their employees’ social networks to share and
promote their content. Employee advocacy has the power to exponentially increase the reach of your law
firm’s thought leadership content.
You can’t expect others to engage with your law firm on social media if you don’t engage with others. Some
firms think of their social media presence as a static bulletin board for their articles and firm announcements,
neglecting to interact with other accounts. By liking, retweeting, or mentioning key influencers or thought
leaders within your industry, you can maximize the success of your firm’s social media efforts. On average,
law firms are using 5 percent fewer hashtags than they were last year. This is troublesome, because hashtags
on Twitter (and increasingly on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram) allow for people outside of your followers
to see and interact with your law firm. Following social media best practices like influencer marketing, using
hashtags, and posting content multiple times are too often forgotten and lead to missed opportunities for law
firms to generate awareness and clients.
Employee advocacy
and reach
20%
80% missed
opportunity
OVERALL
Norton Rose Fulbright

TOP-RANKING
FIRM
For Norton Rose Fulbright, digital marketing is about component of all of our successes. Our business is
sharing stories and engaging with their communities. not just supportive of digital—digital is deeply baked
By engaging with their 7,000-plus legal professionals into all of our business processes.”
in more than 50 cities worldwide, they are able to
bubble up original content that reflects their culture At Norton Rose Fulbright, analytics is a key compo-
and resonates across all regions. nent of every campaign, reflected in each iteration of
a campaign’s development over time. “Without meas-
Chief marketing and business development officer urement, there is no meaning or purpose. All aspects
Nora Shearer says, “Our corporate Instagram account of digital undergo measurement, experimentation,
is a perfect example of globalizing local content. Our formulation, testing, and modification. Digital then
legal professionals-cum-photographers based in far- becomes a blend of communication and science,”
flung locales showcase their unique sights and sounds says Shearer.
to a global audience. This variance on crowdsourcing
allows us to focus on the best and the brightest out- The Am Law 100 firm’s digital marketing efforts not
side the barriers of time and space.” only earned them the No. 1 position in our Social Law
Firm Index, but their investment in digital has posi-
Through their integrated digital marketing efforts— tively affected their brand as well.
which include their social media channels—Norton
Rose Fulbright delivers value to their target audience Shearer elaborates: “Digital marketing has allowed
by providing timely thought leadership with global individuals from all corners to shine, reflecting posi-
reach. tively on our global organization. Digital encourages
our legal professionals to share their own and their
“Thought leadership is a key element of our overall colleagues’ work and successes, thereby elevating our
digital marketing strategy, with the aim to deliver brand as a whole. By encouraging digital activity, we
timely reporting on current trends to our target audi- have positioned ourselves as thought leaders in the
ence,” says Shearer. global marketplace.”
The firm runs a number of campaigns throughout the

year: Litigation Trends Report, International Arbitra-
tion Report,and Project Finance NewsWire are just a
few examples.
These campaigns have run for decades. Each one is

highly anticipated and has built its own global follow-
ing throughout the years.
When it comes to attorney buy-in, Norton Rose

Fulbright has it locked down: “Because of the success
of our global NRF Transform initiative, digital is an
integral aspect of the way that our business goes to Nora Shearer
market,” says Shearer. “Every aspect of our business
is executed through digital channels, and it is a key

Nixon Peabody 17 31
Baker Botts 18 30
Greenberg Traurig 19 43
Baker Donelson 20 38
THE SOCIAL LAW FIRM 2018 ™
Covington & Burling 21 35
Fish & Richardson 22 17
Rank Rank
OVERALL
Firm Name
Jackson Lewis 2018
23 2017
48
Proskauer
Norton Rose
Rose Fulbright 24
1 39
6
INDEX Dechert
DLA Piper
Bryan McKenzie
Baker Cave
25
2
26
3
26
1
14
2
Seyfarth
White Shaw
& Case 27
4 45
4
Morrison
Orrick, & Foerster
Herrington & Sutcliffe 28
5 19
10
Dorsey Lovells
Hogan & Whitney 29
6 16
9
McDermott
Latham Will & Emery
& Watkins 30
7 35
Fenwick&&Knight
Holland West 31
8 59
33
Allen Matkins
Squire Patton Boggs 32
9 58
18
Littler Mendelson
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 33
10 32
12
Perkins
Saul Coie
Ewing 34
11 13
28
K&L Gates
Jones Day 35
12 23
8
Rank Rank Bradley Procter

Goodwin 36
13 82
11
Firm Name 2018 2017 Skadden& Strawn
Winston 37
14 20
27
Norton Rose Fulbright 1 6 Fragomen
Sidley Austin 38
15 53
102
DLA Piper 2 1 Crowell
Fox & Moring
Rothschild 39
16 29
47
Baker McKenzie 3 2 HuschPeabody
Nixon Blackwell 40
17 89
31
White & Case 4 4 Foley &Botts
Baker Lardner 41
18 15
30
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 5 10 Dykema Gossett
Greenberg Traurig 42
19 114
43
Hogan Lovells 6 9 WilmerDonelson
Baker Cutler 43
20 44
38
Latham & Watkins 7 3 Cooley
Covington & Burling 44
21 105
35
Holland & Knight 8 33 BakerHostetler
Fish & Richardson 45
22 21
17
Squire Patton Boggs 9 18 Mintz Levin
Jackson Cohn
Lewis 46
23 34
48
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 10 12 Ice Miller Rose
Proskauer 47
24 106
39
Saul Ewing 11 28 King & Spalding
Dechert 48
25 86
26
Jones Day 12 8 RobinsCave
Bryan Kaplan 49
26 42
14
Goodwin Procter 13 11 Blank Rome
Seyfarth Shaw 50
27 120
45
Winston & Strawn 14 27 Alston & Bird
Morrison & Foerster 51
28 80
19
Sidley Austin 15 102 Greenspoon Marder
Dorsey & Whitney 52
29 73
16
Fox Rothschild 16 47 McGuireWoods
McDermott Will & Emery 53
30 54
5
Nixon Peabody 17 31 Womble &
Fenwick Carlyle
West 54
31 40
59
Baker Botts 18 30 Ballard
Allen Spahr
Matkins 55
32 22
58
Greenberg Traurig 19 43 Reed Smith
Littler Mendelson 56
33 24
32
Baker Donelson 20 38 Shearman
Perkins & Sterling
Coie 57
34 116
13
Covington & Burling 21 35 Mayer
K&L Brown
Gates 58
35 122
23
Fish & Richardson 22 17 Akin Gump
Bradley 59
36 93
82
Jackson Lewis 23 48 O'Melveny & Myers
Skadden 60
37 25
20
Proskauer Rose 24 39 Michael Best & Friedrich
Fragomen 61
38 65
53
Dechert 25 26 Kilpatrick
Crowell & Townsend
Moring 62
39 84
29
Bryan Cave 26 14 Duane Blackwell
Husch Morris 63
40 85
89
Seyfarth Shaw 27 45 Sheppard
Foley Mullin
& Lardner 64
41 52
15
Morrison & Foerster 28 19 Weil, Gotshal
Dykema & Manges
Gossett 65
42 37
114
Womble Carlyle 54 40 Barnes & Thornburg 91 71
Ballard Spahr 55 22 Holland & Hart 92 94
Reed Smith 56 24 Arent Fox 93 111
Shearman & Sterling 57 116 Sullivan & Worcester 94 72
Mayer Brown 58 122 Vinson & Elkins 95 60
Akin Gump 59 93 Drinker Biddle & Reath 96 77
Rank Rank Rank Rank
Firm Name & Myers
O'Melveny 2018
60 2017
25 Firm Name& Shohl
Dinsmore 2018
97 2017
103
Norton
MichaelRose
Best Fulbright
& Friedrich 1
61 6
65 HughesRose
Norton Hubbard & Reed
Fulbright 98
1 92
6
DLA Piper Townsend
Kilpatrick 2
62 1
84 Arnold
DLA & Porter
Piper 99
2 51
1
Baker
DuaneMcKenzie
Morris 3
63 2
85 PepperMcKenzie
Baker Hamilton 100
3 41
2
White & Case
Sheppard Mullin 4
64 4
52 Snell &&Wilmer
White Case 101
4 91
4
Orrick, Herrington
Weil, Gotshal & Sutcliffe
& Manges 5
65 10
37 Dickinson
Orrick, Wright & Sutcliffe
Herrington 102
5 146
10
Hogan
Wilson Lovells
Sonsini 6
66 9
62 Hogan Lovells
Ropes & Gray 103
6 100
9
Latham
Sullivan && Watkins
Cromwell 7
67 3
115 Davis Wright
Latham Tremaine
& Watkins 104
7 155
3
Holland
Troutman& Sanders
Knight 8
68 33
145 Faegre Baker
Holland Daniels
& Knight 105
8 50
33
Squire Patton Boggs
Locke Lord 9
69 18
161 Wiley Rein
9 131
18
Morgan, Lewis
Haynes and & Bockius
Boone 10
70 12
56 Lathrop &Lewis
Morgan, Gage& Bockius 107
10 179
12
Saul Ewing
Fisher & Phillips 11
71 28
55 Paul Ewing
Saul Hastings 108
11 64
28
Jones Day
Bracewell 12
72 8
90 KattenDay
Jones Muchin Rosenman 109
12 75
8
Goodwin Procter
Cleary Gottlieb 13
73 11
160 Cozen O'Connor
Goodwin Procter 110
13 98
11
Winston
Finnegan& Strawn 14
74 27
95 Hunton &&Williams
Winston Strawn 111
14 36
27
Sidley Austin
Vorys Sater 15
75 102
140 Benesch
Sidley Austin 112
15 123
102
Fox Rothschild
Debevoise & Plimpton 16
76 47
132 Goldberg
Fox Segalla
Rothschild 113
16 47
Nixon Peabody
Kirkland & Ellis 17
77 31
166 Quarles
Nixon & Brady
Peabody 114
17 57
31
Baker Botts Rothgerber Christie
Lewis Roca 18
78 30
68 Lowenstein
Baker Botts Sandler 115
18 183
30
Greenberg
Robinson &Traurig
Cole 19
79 43
168 Pillsbury Traurig
Greenberg 116
19 74
43
Baker Donelson
Polsinelli 20
80 38
70 WillkieDonelson
Baker Farr & Gallagher 117
20 167
38
Covington
Foley Hoag& Burling 21
81 35
61 Buckley Sandler
21 130
35
Fish & Richardson
Nelson Mullins Riley 22
82 17
99 Frost&Brown
Fish Todd
Richardson 119
22 128
17
Jackson LewisJorden Burt
Carlton Fields 23
83 48
76 ProcopioLewis
Jackson Cory 120
23 117
48
Proskauer
Adams andRose
Reese 24
84 39
175 Buchanan Rose
Proskauer Ingersoll & Rooney 121
24 109
39
Dechert
Stoel Rives 25
85 26
118 Miller Canfield Paddock
Dechert 122
25 63
26
Bryan Cave
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher 26
86 14
46 Brownstein
Bryan Cave Hyatt Farber Schreck 123
26 171
14
Miles & Stockbridge
Seyfarth Shaw 87
27 97
45 Smith, Gambrell
Seyfarth Shaw & Russell 124
27 78
45
Steptoe &&Johnson
Morrison Foerster 88
28 83
19 Arnall Golden
Morrison Gregory
& Foerster 125
28 124
19
Patterson
Dorsey Belknap
& Whitney 89
29 154
16 McCarter
Dorsey & English
& Whitney 126
29 169
16
Ogletree Deakins
30 49
5 Stinson Leonard
McDermott Will &Street
Emery 127
30 119
5
Barnes &&Thornburg
Fenwick West 91
31 71
59 Shook, Hardy
Fenwick & Bacon
& West 128
31 112
59
Holland
Allen & Hart
Matkins 92
32 94
58 Thompson
Allen Hine
Matkins 129
32 186
58
Arent Fox
33 111
32 Jackson
Littler Walker
Mendelson 130
33 127
32
Sullivan Coie
Perkins & Worcester 94
34 72
13 Shumaker,
Perkins Loop & Kendrick
Coie 131
34 143
13
Vinson
K&L & Elkins
Gates 95
35 60
23 Shutts
K&L & Bowen
Gates 132
35 81
23
Drinker Biddle & Reath
Bradley 96
36 77
82 Vedder Price
Bradley 133
36 181
82
Dinsmore & Shohl
Skadden 97
37 103
20 Burr & Forman
Skadden 134
37 20
110
Hughes Hubbard & Reed
Fragomen 98
38 92
53 Wilson Elser Moskowitz
Fragomen 135
38 125
53
Arnold &&Porter
Crowell Moring 99
39 51
29 Thompson
Crowell Coburn
& Moring 136
39 87
29
PepperBlackwell
Husch Hamilton 100
40 41
89 Manatt,Blackwell
Husch Phelps & Phillips 137
40 89
66
Snell && Wilmer
Foley Lardner 101
41 91
15 Paul Weiss
Foley & Lardner 138
41 15
142
DickinsonGossett
Dykema Wright 102
42 146
114 Fried Frank
Dykema Gossett 139
42 163
114
Shook, Hardy & Bacon 128 112 McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney 165 150
Thompson Hine 129 186 Davis Polk & Wardwell 166 165
Jackson Walker 130 127 Phelps Dunbar 167 156
Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick 131 143 Armstrong Teasdale 168 134
Shutts & Bowen 132 81 Cole Schotz 169
Vedder Price 133 181 Clark Hill 170 178
Rank Rank Rank Rank
Firm Name
Burr & Forman 2018
134 2017
110 Firm Name
Schulte Roth & Zabel 2018
171 2017
170
Wilson Elser
Norton Rose Moskowitz
Fulbright 1
135 6
125 Norton
ChapmanRose
andFulbright
Cutler 1
172 6
153
DLA Piper Coburn
Thompson 2
136 1
87 DLA PiperDennehey
Marshall 2
173 1
Baker McKenzie
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips 3
137 2
66 Baker
ChoateMcKenzie
Hall & Stewart 3
174 2
192
White & Case
Paul Weiss 4
138 4
142 White
Eckert&Seamans
Case 4
175 4
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
Fried Frank 5
139 10
163 Orrick, Herrington
Kelley Drye & Sutcliffe
& Warren 5
176 10
136
Hogan Lovells
Schiff Hardin 6
140 9
151 Hogan Lovells
Honigman Miller Schwartz 6
177 9
141
Latham
Goulston& &Watkins
Storrs 7
141 3
174 Thompson
Latham & Knight
& Watkins 7
178 3
137
Holland & Knight
Brown Rudnick 8
142 33
185 Holland & Knight
Curtis Mallet-Prevost 8
179 33
148
Squire
AkermanPatton Boggs 9
143 18
88 Squire Patton Boggs
GrayRobinson 9
180 18
96
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
Cadwalader 10
144 12
79 Morgan,
Cravath, Lewis
Swaine& &Bockius
Moore 10
181 12
172
Saul Ewing
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan 11
145 28
191 Saul Ewing
Munger, Tolles & Olson 11
182 28
194
Jones
Bond, Day
Schoeneck & King 12
146 8
104 Jones Day
Quinn Emanuel 12
183 8
164
Goodwin Procter
Loeb & Loeb 13
147 11
176 Goodwin Procter
Moore & Van Allen 13
184 11
152
Winston
Hinckley,&Allen
Strawn
& Snyder 14
148 27
177 Winston
Simpson&Thacher
Strawn & Bartlett 14
185 27
188
Sidley
MilbankAustin 15
149 102
193 Sidley Austin
LeClairRyan 15
186 102
144
Fox Rothschild
Lewis Brisbois 16
150 47
182 Fox Rothschild
Venable 16
187 47
147
Nixon Peabody
Winstead 17
151 31
138 Nixon PeabodyFlexner
Boies Schiller 17
188 31
139
Baker
Morris,Botts
Manning & Martin 18
152 30
173 Baker
Kutak Botts
Rock 18
189 30
195
Greenberg Traurig
Jenner & Block 19
153 43
101 Greenberg
Kasowitz Traurig 19
190 43
189
Baker Donelson
Buchalter 20
154 38 Baker DonelsonButler & Mitchell
Jeffer Mangels 20
191 38
149
Covington & Burling
Kramer Levin 21
155 35
108 Covington
Wachtell & Burling 21
192 35
198
Fish & Richardson
Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear 22
156 17
129 Fish & Richardson
Gibbons 22
193 17
159
Jackson LewisMorris & Arthur
Porter Wright 23
157 48
162 Jackson Lewis
Herrick, Feinstein 23
194 48
Proskauer Rose
Williams Mullen 24
158 39
121 Proskauer Rose
Rutan & Tucker 24
195 39
197
Dechert
Sherman & Howard 25
159 26
158 Dechert
Cahill Gordon & Reindel 25
196 26
180
Bryan Cave
Hinshaw & Culbertson 26
160 14
113 Bryan Cave
Irell & Manella 26
197 14
190
Seyfarth Shaw
Lane Powell 27
161 45
107 Seyfarth
Williams Shaw
& Connolly 27
198 45
196
Morrison & Foerster
Kobre & Kim 28
162 19
187 Morrison & Foerster 28 19
Dorsey
Gordon&Rees
Whitney
Scully Mansukhani 29
163 16
133 Dorsey & Whitney 29 16
McDermott
Day Pitney Will & Emery 30
164 5
135 McDermott Will & Emery 30 5
Fenwick & West Mulvaney
McElroy Deutsch 31
165 59
150 Fenwick & West 31 59
Allen
DavisMatkins
Polk & Wardwell 32
166 58
165 Allen Matkins 32 58
Littler
PhelpsMendelson
Dunbar 33
167 32
156 Littler Mendelson 33 32
Perkins Coie
Armstrong Teasdale 34
168 13
134 Perkins Coie 34 13
K&L
Cole Gates
Schotz 35
169 23 K&L Gates 35 23
Bradley
Clark Hill 36
170 82
178 Bradley 36 82
Skadden
171 20
170 Skadden 37 20
Fragomen
Chapman and Cutler 38
172 53
153 Fragomen 38 53
Crowell
Marshall&Dennehey
Moring 39
173 29 Crowell & Moring 39 29
Husch
ChoateBlackwell
Hall & Stewart 40
174 89
192 Husch Blackwell 40 89
Foley
Eckert&Seamans
Lardner 41
175 15 Foley & Lardner 41 15
Dykema Gossett
Kelley Drye & Warren 42
176 114
136 Dykema Gossett 42 114
Ogletree Deakins 9 17
Womble Carlyle 10 72
Covington & Burling 11 40
Hunton & Williams 12 41
Jackson Lewis 13 71
In this year’s research we found that more firms than
Mintz Levin Cohn 14 59
ever are using content marketing to establish them-
THOUGHT Troutman
selves as Sanders
taking advantage
Perkins Coie
marketers81are
thought leaders. Further, legal 15
of multimedia like videos,
16 podcasts,
24
LEADERSHIP and interactive
White & Case content to showcase their
17firm’s exper-
156
INDEX
tise and knowledge. Thought leadership content must
Foley & Lardner 18 22
be more engaging and innovative than ever due to
Seyfarth
the highShaw
saturation of content now found19online. 50
Robinson & Cole 20 172
Sheppard Mullin 21 69
Faegre Baker Daniels 22 27
Rank Rank
Firm Name
Ballard Spahr 2018
23 2017
53
Norton
PillsburyRose Fulbright 1
24 9
28
Bradley
Dorsey & Whitney 2
25 114
3
Proskauer Rose
BakerHostetler 3
26 67
25
DLA
FoleyPiper
Hoag 4
27 6
70
Rank Rank K&L Gates

Mayer Brown 5
28 1
166
Firm Name 2018 2017 Fox Rothschild
Duane Morris 6
29 30
15
Norton Rose Fulbright 1 9 Hogan Lovells
Patterson Belknap 7
30 14
121
Bradley 2 114 Squire
SteptoePatton Boggs
& Johnson 8
31 12
2
Proskauer Rose 3 67 Ogletree Deakins
Husch Blackwell 9
32 17
43
DLA Piper 4 6 Womble
Arent FoxCarlyle 10
33 72
64
K&L Gates 5 1 Covington & Burling
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 11
34 40
20
Fox Rothschild 6 30 Hunton & Williams
35 41
16
Hogan Lovells 7 14 Jackson Lewis
36 71
117
Squire Patton Boggs 8 12 Mintz
FisherLevin Cohn
& Phillips 14
37 59
138
Ogletree Deakins 9 17 Troutman SandersOlson & Bear
Knobbe, Martens, 15
38 81
116
Womble Carlyle 10 72 Perkins Coie
Bryan Cave 16
39 24
46
Covington & Burling 11 40 White &&
Holland Case
Knight 17
40 156
37
Hunton & Williams 12 41 Foley & Lardner
Goodwin Procter 18
41 22
21
Jackson Lewis 13 71 Seyfarth Shaw
Davis Wright Tremaine 19
42 50
42
Mintz Levin Cohn 14 59 Robinson & Cole
McGuireWoods 20
43 172
36
Troutman Sanders 15 81 Ropes & Gray
Sheppard Mullin 44
21 29
69
Perkins Coie 16 24 CrowellBaker
Faegre & Moring
Daniels 45
22 78
27
White & Case 17 156 Cole Schotz
Ballard Spahr 46
23 53
Foley & Lardner 18 22 Barnes & Thornburg
Pillsbury 47
24 98
28
Seyfarth Shaw 19 50 Saul Ewing
Dorsey & Whitney 48
25 97
3
Robinson & Cole 20 172 Buckley Sandler
BakerHostetler 49
26 113
25
Sheppard Mullin 21 69 Greenberg
Foley HoagTraurig 50
27 130
70
Faegre Baker Daniels 22 27 Cozen Brown
Mayer O'Connor 51
28 47
166
Ballard Spahr 23 53 Wiley Rein
Duane Morris 52
29 126
15
Pillsbury 24 28 Finnegan Belknap
Patterson 53
30 96
121
Dorsey & Whitney 25 3 Miles & Stockbridge
Steptoe & Johnson 54
31 135
2
BakerHostetler 26 25 Morgan,
Husch Lewis & Bockius
Blackwell 55
32 7
43
Foley Hoag 27 70 RobinsFox
Arent Kaplan 56
33 34
64
Mayer Brown 28 166 Cooley Herrington & Sutcliffe
Orrick, 57
34 66
20
Cole Schotz 46 Sidley Austin 83 111
Barnes & Thornburg 47 98 Venable 84 49
Saul Ewing 48 97 Lowenstein Sandler 85 180
Buckley Sandler 49 113 Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie 86 94
Greenberg Traurig 50 130 Weil, Gotshal & Manges 87 18
Cozen O'Connor 51 47 Hinshaw & Culbertson 88 76
Rank Rank Rank Rank
Firm
WileyName
Rein 2018
52 2017
126 Firm Name
Gibbons 2018
89 2017
155
Finnegan
Norton Rose Fulbright 53
1 96
9 Greenspoon
Norton RoseMarder
Fulbright 90
1 140
9
Miles & Stockbridge
Bradley 54
2 135
114 Dykema Gossett
Bradley 91
2 100
114
Morgan, Lewis
Proskauer Rose& Bockius 55
3 7
67 McElroy Deutsch
Proskauer Rose Mulvaney 92
3 148
67
Robins
DLA Kaplan
Piper 56
4 34
6 Sullivan
DLA & Worcester
Piper 93
4 95
6
Cooley
K&L Gates 57
5 66
1 Paul Gates
K&L Hastings 94
5 68
1
Winston
Fox & Strawn
Rothschild 58
6 109
30 Fox Rothschild
6 4
30
Dickinson
Hogan Wright
Lovells 59
7 112
14 Gibson,Lovells
Hogan Dunn & Crutcher 96
7 45
14
Nixon Peabody
8 32
12 PepperPatton
Squire Hamilton
Boggs 97
8 26
12
Drinker Biddle
Ogletree & Reath
Deakins 61
9 44
17 Latham &Deakins
Ogletree Watkins 98
9 8
17
KilpatrickCarlyle
Womble Townsend 62
10 102
72 WinsteadCarlyle
Womble 99
10 136
72
Snell & Wilmer
11 127
40 Shumaker, &
Covington Loop & Kendrick
Burling 100
11 165
40
Akin Gump
Hunton & Williams 64
12 65
41 Shutts &&Bowen
Hunton Williams 101
12 125
41
Blank Rome
Jackson Lewis 65
13 91
71 AkermanLewis
Jackson 102
13 60
71
Holland
Mintz & Hart
Levin Cohn 66
14 75
59 Gordon
Mintz Rees
Levin Scully Mansukhani
Cohn 103
14 110
59
Burr & Forman
Troutman Sanders 67
15 122
81 Porter Wright
Troutman Morris & Arthur
Sanders 104
15 133
81
Cleary Gottlieb
Perkins Coie 68
16 159
24 Wilmer Cutler
Perkins Coie 105
16 39
24
Allen Matkins
White & Case 69
17 146
156 Buchanan
White Ingersoll
& Case 106
17 52
156
Shearman
Foley & Sterling
& Lardner 70
18 33
22 Vorys &Sater
Foley Lardner 107
18 128
22
Eckert Seamans
Seyfarth Shaw 71
19 50 BracewellShaw
Seyfarth 108
19 105
50
Stoel Rives& Cole
Robinson 72
20 82
172 King & Spalding
Robinson & Cole 109
20 57
172
Vinson & Elkins
Sheppard Mullin 73
21 63
69 Reed Smith
Sheppard Mullin 110
21 74
69
Jones Day
Faegre Baker Daniels 74
22 13
27 Curtis Mallet-Prevost
Faegre Baker Daniels 111
22 158
27
LeClairRyan
Ballard Spahr 75
23 141
53 Jeffer Mangels
Ballard Spahr Butler & Mitchell 112
23 118
53
Nelson Mullins Riley
Pillsbury 76
24 101
28 Schiff Hardin
Pillsbury 113
24 162
28
Carlton &
Dorsey Fields Jorden Burt
Whitney 77
25 115
3 Fish & Richardson
Dorsey & Whitney 114
25 19
3
Haynes and Boone
BakerHostetler 78
26 80
25 Thompson & Knight
BakerHostetler 115
26 144
25
Baker Hoag
Foley Donelson 79
27 62
70 MooreHoag
Foley & Van Allen 116
27 137
70
Lane Powell
Mayer Brown 80
28 108
166 QuarlesBrown
Mayer & Brady 117
28 84
166
Smith, Gambrell
Duane Morris & Russell 81
29 142
15 StinsonMorris
Duane Leonard Street 118
29 77
15
Polsinelli Belknap
Patterson 82
30 51
121 Goulston &Belknap
Patterson Storrs 119
30 184
121
Sidley Austin
Steptoe & Johnson 83
31 111
2 Frost Brown
Steptoe Todd
& Johnson 120
31 86
2
VenableBlackwell
Husch 84
32 49
43 Miller Canfield
Husch Paddock
Blackwell 121
32 87
43
Lowenstein
Arent Fox Sandler 85
33 180
64 Ice Miller
Arent Fox 122
33 103
64
Lewis Roca
Orrick, Rothgerber
Herrington Christie
& Sutcliffe 86
34 94
20 FenwickHerrington
Orrick, & West & Sutcliffe 123
34 79
20
Weil, Gotshal
Littler & Manges
Mendelson 87
35 18
16 Clark Hill
35 178
16
Hinshaw
Kelley & Culbertson
Drye & Warren 88
36 76
117 Buchalter
36 117
Gibbons
37 155
138 Dechert
37 92
138
Greenspoon
Knobbe, MarderOlson & Bear
Martens, 90
38 140
116 Thompson
Knobbe, CoburnOlson & Bear
Martens, 127
38 90
116
Dykema
Bryan Gossett
Cave 91
39 100
46 Cadwalader
Bryan Cave 128
39 93
46
McElroy &
Holland Deutsch
Knight Mulvaney 92
40 148
37 Wilson Elser
Holland Moskowitz
& Knight 129
40 99
37
Sullivan & Procter
Goodwin Worcester 93
41 95
21 Arnall Golden
Goodwin Gregory
Procter 130
41 89
21
Paul Hastings
42 68
42 Lewis Wright
Davis Brisbois
Tremaine 131
42 189
42
Frost Brown Todd 120 86 Hinckley, Allen & Snyder 157 188
Miller Canfield Paddock 121 87 Kirkland & Ellis 158 183
Ice Miller 122 103 Baker McKenzie 159 5
Fenwick & West 123 79 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 160 168
Clark Hill 124 178 Paul Weiss 161 157
Buchalter 125 Quinn Emanuel 162 88
Rank Rank Rank Rank
Firm Name
Dechert 2018
126 2017
92 Firm Name& Myers
O'Melveny 2018
163 2017
23
Thompson
Norton Coburn
Rose Fulbright 127
1 90
9 Fried Frank
1 167
9
Cadwalader
Bradley 128
2 93
114 Shook, Hardy & Bacon
Bradley 165
2 139
114
Wilson Elser
Proskauer Moskowitz
Rose 129
3 99
67 Hughes Hubbard
Proskauer Rose & Reed 166
3 129
67
ArnallPiper
DLA Golden Gregory 130
4 89
6 Marshall
DLA PiperDennehey 167
4 6
LewisGates
K&L Brisbois 131
5 189
1 Kobre
K&L & Kim
Gates 168
5 198
1
Fox Rothschild
6 169
30 Morris,
Fox Manning & Martin
Rothschild 169
6 186
30
Jackson
Hogan Walker
Lovells 133
7 85
14 Armstrong
Hogan Teasdale
Lovells 170
7 134
14
Bond, Schoeneck
Squire & King
Patton Boggs 134
8 120
12 Skadden
8 35
12
Alston & Bird
Ogletree Deakins 135
9 58
17 Davis Polk
Ogletree & Wardwell
Deakins 172
9 31
17
Fragomen
Womble Carlyle 136
10 61
72 McDermott
Womble Will & Emery
Carlyle 173
10 38
72
Manatt, Phelps
Covington & Phillips
& Burling 137
11 40
48 Milbank & Burling
Covington 174
11 170
40
Dinsmore
Hunton & Shohl
& Williams 138
12 41
132 Debevoise
Hunton & Plimpton
& Williams 175
12 73
41
Honigman
Jackson Miller Schwartz
Lewis 139
13 149
71 Wilson Sonsini
Jackson Lewis 176
13 55
71
Day Pitney
Mintz Levin Cohn 140
14 145
59 WillkieLevin
Mintz Farr &Cohn
Gallagher 177
14 160
59
Michael Best
Troutman & Friedrich
Sanders 141
15 104
81 Wachtell Sanders
Troutman 178
15 190
81
Sullivan Coie
Perkins & Cromwell 142
16 154
24 Baker Botts
Perkins Coie 179
16 56
24
Williams
White Mullen
& Case 143
17 106
156 Cravath,
White Swaine & Moore
& Case 180
17 193
156
Sherman
Foley & Howard
& Lardner 144
18 150
22 Locke&Lord
Foley Lardner 181
18 164
22
Brown Rudnick
Seyfarth Shaw 145
19 175
50 Jenner &Shaw
Seyfarth Block 182
19 83
50
Kramer Levin
Robinson & Cole 146
20 143
172 Williams &&Connolly
Robinson Cole 183
20 177
172
GrayRobinson
Sheppard Mullin 147
21 147
69 Boies Schiller
Sheppard MullinFlexner 184
21 152
69
Katten Muchin
Faegre Rosenman
Baker Daniels 148
22 54
27 Cahill Gordon
Faegre & Reindel
Baker Daniels 185
22 163
27
McCarter
Ballard & English
Spahr 149
23 192
53 Loeb & Spahr
Ballard Loeb 186
23 173
53
Procopio Cory
Pillsbury 150
24 119
28 Vedder Price
Pillsbury 187
24 195
28
Arnold && Porter
Dorsey Whitney 151
25 11
3 Stroock&&Whitney
Dorsey Stroock & Lavan 188
25 194
3
Kasowitz
BakerHostetler 152
26 191
25 Munger, Tolles & Olson
BakerHostetler 189
26 176
25
Thompson
Foley HoagHine 153
27 179
70 Choate
Foley Hall & Stewart
Hoag 190
27 185
70
Brownstein
Mayer BrownHyatt Farber Schreck 154
28 171
166 Kutak Rock
Mayer Brown 191
28 187
166
LathropMorris
Duane & Gage 155
29 174
15 Chapman
Duane and Cutler
Morris 192
29 153
15
Goldberg Segalla
Patterson Belknap 156
30 121 Irell & Manella
30 196
121
Hinckley,&Allen
Steptoe & Snyder
Johnson 157
31 188
2 Adams and
Steptoe Reese
& Johnson 194
31 181
2
Kirkland
Husch & Ellis
Blackwell 158
32 183
43 Phelps Blackwell
Husch Dunbar 195
32 161
43
BakerFox
Arent McKenzie 159
33 5
64 Benesch
Arent Fox 196
33 151
64
Simpson
Orrick, Thacher & Bartlett
Herrington Sutcliffe 160
34 168
20 Rutan &Herrington
Orrick, Tucker & Sutcliffe 197
34 197
20
Paul Weiss
35 157
16 Herrick,
Littler Feinstein
Mendelson 198
35 16
Quinn Emanuel
36 88
117 Kelley Drye & Warren 36 117
O'Melveny
Fisher & Myers
& Phillips 163
37 23
138 Fisher & Phillips 37 138
Fried Frank
38 167
116 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear 38 116
Shook,Cave
Bryan Hardy & Bacon 165
39 139
46 Bryan Cave 39 46
Hughes &
Holland Hubbard
Knight & Reed 166
40 129
37 Holland & Knight 40 37
Marshall Dennehey
Goodwin Procter 167
41 21 Goodwin Procter 41 21
KobreWright
Davis & Kim Tremaine 168
42 198
42 Davis Wright Tremaine 42 42
TOP-RANKING
K&L Gates SEO FIRM
As the top thought leadership firm in our 2017 Social tightly correlated to their social strategy; publishing
Law Firm Index, it’s no surprise that K&L Gates soared content socially helps them strengthen their SEO rate.
to the No. 1 position in our SEO category this year. And, until recently, they published all of their thought
While the firm does not have a formally written search leadership on Google+ as a means to strengthen
engine optimization strategy in place, K&L Gates their search results on Google.
CMO Jeff Berardi says, “SEO is an important element
of our firmwide marketing strategy. It is our priority The content marketing strategy at K&L Gates evolves
to effectively inject our thought leadership into the around their target audience. Kinney-Mallin explains,
marketplace, and utilizing techniques that increase “Each industry that we serve has its own unique
our SEO rate to enable people to find our material is needs; we work to identify the commonalities across
critical to our success.” our target audience and tailor our content strategy to
align with those business needs. Through this de-
The goal of search engine optimization for K&L Gates velopment process, we effectively use keywords to
is to attract visitors who are interested in the services impact our SEO results.”
they offer and to position the firm so that the visitors
become clients of the firm. Therefore, they utilize K&L Gates utilizes analytics to assess their traffic pat-
an array of tactics to bolster their SEO. For instance, terns and has seen a measurable impact on the firm’s
when they publish content, they always utilize title success related to SEO. Year-to-date, over 65 percent
tags to improve SEO results. of their traffic comes from organic search.
“The legal industry is very competitive; authoring

quality content is not enough.We make every attempt
to ensure that our material prominently appears when
people use search engines to seek information,” says
Berardi.
At K&L Gates, SEO strategy is one and the same with

their overall digital marketing strategy.
Associate director of marketing services Eileen Kin-

ney-Mallin says, “We leverage digital technologies to
promote the services we offer and enhance the rela-
tionships we have with our clients. Being active across
the digital landscape is extremely important; many
Eileen Kinney-Mallin Jeff Berardi
business decisions are culminated through research
conducted online. Therefore, it’s imperative that we
have effective SEO tactics in place so that clients and
prospects can easily find our material and recognize
our ability to help them solve their business needs.”
The firm understands the benefit of utilizing social

media to bolster their marketing program. SEO is

Vinson & Elkins 12 58
Proskauer Rose 13 63
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 14 5
Kilpatrick Townsend 15 103
Mayer Brown 16 13
Many firms in 2018 placed an increased focus on
Fox Rothschild 17 36
search engine optimization. Creating consistent,
SEO
Haynes and
quality Booneleadership content is important
thought 18 for65
attracting new clients, but ensuring that 19
Baker Hostetler that content
19
INDEX
can easily be found is essential.
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 20 51
Wilmer Cutler 21 15
Squire Patton Boggs 22 8
Rank Rank
Firm
RopesName
& Gray 2018
23 2017
41
LittlerGates
K&L Mendelson 24
1 30
10
Ogletree
Baker Deakins
McKenzie 25
2 38
2
Duane Morris
3 21
3
McGuireWoods
Jones Day 27
4 37
9
Foley & Lardner
5 22
4
DLA
Weil,Piper
Gotshal & Manges 29
6 29
1
Perkins Coie
Skadden 30
7 16
14
Rank Rank Gibson, &Dunn

Latham & Crutcher
Watkins 31
8 42
12
Firm Name 2018 2017 Mintz Levin
Hogan Cohn
Lovells 32
9 39
6
K&L Gates 1 10 Kirkland &&Ellis
10 114
7
Baker McKenzie 2 2 Covington
Cleary & Burling
Gottlieb 34
11 18
151
Norton Rose Fulbright 3 3 Nixon Peabody
Vinson & Elkins 35
12 17
58
Jones Day 4 9 Ballard Spahr
Proskauer Rose 36
13 20
63
Greenberg Traurig 5 4 Alston & Lewis
Morgan, Bird & Bockius 37
14 53
5
DLA Piper 6 1 Katten Muchin
Kilpatrick Rosenman
Townsend 38
15 47
103
Skadden 7 14 Fish & Richardson
Mayer Brown 39
16 35
13
Latham & Watkins 8 12 Shearman
Fox & Sterling
Rothschild 40
17 61
36
Hogan Lovells 9 6 Pepper Hamilton
Haynes and Boone 41
18 55
65
Morrison & Foerster 10 7 Sheppard
Baker Mullin
Hostetler 42
19 59
19
Cleary Gottlieb 11 151 Faegre Herrington
Orrick, Baker Daniels
& Sutcliffe 43
20 54
51
Vinson & Elkins 12 58 JacksonCutler
Wilmer Lewis 44
21 62
15
Proskauer Rose 13 63 Paul Hastings
22 43
8
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 14 5 Cooley& Gray
Ropes 46
23 46
41
Kilpatrick Townsend 15 103 Bryan Mendelson
Littler Cave 47
24 28
30
Mayer Brown 16 13 Manatt, Phelps
Ogletree & Phillips
Deakins 48
25 40
38
Fox Rothschild 17 36 Baker Donelson
Duane Morris 49
26 49
21
Haynes and Boone 18 65 Cozen O'Connor
McGuireWoods 50
27 44
37
Baker Hostetler 19 19 Arent &
Foley Fox
Lardner 51
28 60
22
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 20 51 King &Gotshal
Weil, Spalding
& Manges 52
29 27
29
Wilmer Cutler 21 15 Davis Wright
Perkins Coie Tremaine 53
30 106
16
Squire Patton Boggs 22 8 Debevoise
Gibson, & Plimpton
Dunn & Crutcher 54
31 79
42
Ropes & Gray 23 41 Winston
Mintz & Strawn
Levin Cohn 55
32 76
39
Littler Mendelson 24 30 Husch Blackwell
Kirkland & Ellis 56
33 50
114
Ogletree Deakins 25 38 Dechert & Burling
Covington 57
34 96
18
Duane Morris 26 21 O'Melveny
Nixon & Myers
Peabody 58
35 48
17
McGuireWoods 27 37 SteptoeSpahr
Ballard & Johnson 59
36 64
20
Foley & Lardner 28 22 Baker Botts
Alston & Bird 60
37 77
53
Baker Donelson 49 49 Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell 86 121
Cozen O'Connor 50 44 Jackson Walker 87 89
Arent Fox 51 60 Finnegan 88 147
King & Spalding 52 27 Thompson Coburn 89 119
Davis Wright Tremaine 53 106 Quarles & Brady 90 86
Debevoise & Plimpton 54 79 Dinsmore & Shohl 91 143
Rank Rank Rank Rank
Firm Name
Winston & Strawn 2018
55 2017
76 Firm Name
Dykema Gossett 2018
92 2017
97
K&L Gates
Husch Blackwell 1
56 10
50 LoebGates
K&L & Loeb 93
1 116
10
Baker McKenzie
Dechert 2
57 2
96 Miller Canfield
Baker McKenzie Paddock 94
2 105
2
Norton Rose
O'Melveny & Fulbright
Myers 3
58 3
48 Wilson Elser
Norton Rose Moskowitz
Fulbright 95
3 131
3
Jones Day
Steptoe & Johnson 4
59 9
64 McDermott
Jones Day Will & Emery 96
4 24
9
Greenberg
Baker BottsTraurig 5
60 4
77 Dickinson Wright
5 107
4
DLA
Akin Piper
Gump 6
61 1
33 DLA Piper
Stinson Leonard Street 98
6 87
1
Skadden
Jenner & Block 7
62 14
72 Thompson Hine
Skadden 99
7 113
14
Latham
Dorsey && Whitney
Watkins 8
63 12
31 Clark Hill& Watkins
Latham 100
8 132
12
Hogan Lovells
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney 9
64 6
85 Wiley Rein
Hogan Lovells 101
9 126
6
Morrison
Akerman & Foerster 10
65 7
88 Williams && Connolly
10 116
7
Cleary
DrinkerGottlieb
Biddle & Reath 11
66 151
52 Fried Frank
Cleary Gottlieb 103
11 109
151
Vinson & Elkins
Stoel Rives 12
67 58
70 Michael&Best
Vinson & Friedrich
Elkins 104
12 92
58
Proskauer
Locke LordRose 13
68 63
57 Lane Powell
Proskauer Rose 105
13 111
63
Quinn Emanuel 14
69 5
74 Gordon Rees
Morgan, LewisScully Mansukhani
& Bockius 106
14 123
5
Kilpatrick Townsend
White & Case 15
70 103
32 Adams and
Kilpatrick Reese
Townsend 107
15 139
103
Mayer
WilsonBrown
Sonsini 16
71 13
45 Lowenstein
Mayer BrownSandler 108
16 110
13
Fox
PaulRothschild
Weiss 17
72 36
80 Milbank
Fox Rothschild 109
17 84
36
Haynes
Pillsburyand Boone 18
73 65
25 Kutak Rock
Haynes and Boone 110
18 135
65
Baker Hostetler
Blank Rome 19
74 19
82 Seyfarth
Baker Shaw
Hostetler 111
19 108
19
Orrick,
WilliamsHerrington
Mullen & Sutcliffe 20
75 51
101 HollandHerrington
Orrick, & Knight & Sutcliffe 112
20 67
51
Wilmer Cutler
Cadwalader 21
76 15
90 Simpson
Wilmer Thacher & Bartlett
Cutler 113
21 15
146
Squire
HinshawPatton Boggs
& Culbertson 22
77 8
73 Burr & Forman
22 122
8
Ropes
Holland&&Gray
Hart 23
78 41
69 Willkie &
Ropes Farr & Gallagher
Gray 115
23 136
41
Littler
NelsonMendelson
Mullins Riley 24
79 30
104 Ice Miller
24 95
30
Ogletree Deakins
Foley Hoag 25
80 38
91 Kramer Levin
Ogletree Deakins 117
25 175
38
Duane MorrisTodd
Frost Brown 26
81 21
100 Robinson
Duane & Cole
Morris 118
26 99
21
McGuireWoods
Davis Polk & Wardwell 27
82 37
78 Brown Rudnick
McGuireWoods 119
27 137
37
Foley & Lardner
Fenwick & West 28
83 22
83 Arnall &Golden
Foley Gregory
Lardner 120
28 22
142
Weil, Gotshal
Sullivan & Manges
& Cromwell 29
84 29
66 Reed Gotshal
Weil, Smith & Manges 121
29 75
29
Perkins
FragomenCoie 30
85 16
71 Robins Kaplan
Perkins Coie 122
30 94
16
Gibson, Dunn &Butler
Jeffer Mangels Crutcher
& Mitchell 31
86 42
121 Carlton Fields
Gibson, Dunn & Jorden Burt
Crutcher 123
31 112
42
Mintz Levin
Jackson Cohn
Walker 32
87 39
89 Sullivan
Mintz & Worcester
Levin Cohn 124
32 162
39
Kirkland
Finnegan& Ellis 33
88 114
147 Patterson& Belknap
Kirkland Ellis 125
33 130
114
Covington
Thompson &Coburn
Burling 34
89 18
119 Lathrop & Gage
34 134
18
Nixon Peabody
Quarles & Brady 35
90 17
86 Hughes
Nixon Hubbard & Reed
Peabody 127
35 133
17
Ballard
DinsmoreSpahr
& Shohl 36
91 20
143 Moore &Spahr
Ballard Van Allen 128
36 20
149
Dykema
Alston & Gossett
Bird 37
92 53
97 Schulte&Roth
Alston Bird & Zabel 129
37 128
53
Katten
Loeb &Muchin
Loeb Rosenman 38
93 47
116 Katten Muchin
Armstrong Rosenman
Teasdale 38
130 153
47
Fish
Miller&Canfield
Richardson
Paddock 39
94 35
105 Fish & Richardson
Winstead 39
131 35
158
Shearman & Sterling
Wilson Elser Moskowitz 40
95 61
131 Shearman & Sterling
Goldberg Segalla 40
132 61
Pepper Hamilton
96 55
24 Pepper Hamilton
Phelps Dunbar 41
133 55
159
Sheppard
Dickinson Mullin
Wright 42
97 59
107 Sheppard Mullin
Vorys Sater 42
134 59
150
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt 123 112 Bond, Schoeneck & King 160 160
Sullivan & Worcester 124 162 Barnes & Thornburg 161 124
Patterson Belknap 125 130 Goulston & Storrs 162 152
Lathrop & Gage 126 134 Goodwin Procter 163 34
Hughes Hubbard & Reed 127 133 Eckert Seamans 164
Moore & Van Allen 128 149 Rutan & Tucker 165 197
Rank Rank Rank Rank
Firm Name
129 2017
128 Firm Name Hyatt Farber Schreck
Brownstein 2018
166 2017
166
K&L Gates Teasdale
Armstrong 1
130 153
10 K&L Gates
McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney 1
167 10
176
Baker McKenzie
Winstead 2
131 2
158 Baker McKenzie
Buckley Sandler 2
168 2
174
Norton Rose
Goldberg Fulbright
Segalla 3
132 3 Norton Rose
Troutman Fulbright
Sanders 3
169 81
3
Jones
PhelpsDay
Dunbar 4
133 9
159 Jones Day
Wachtell 4
170 9
154
Greenberg
Vorys SaterTraurig 5
134 4
150 Greenberg Traurig
Cravath, Swaine & Moore 5
171 4
167
DLA Piper
135 1
125 DLA Piper
Womble Carlyle 6
172 1
68
Skadden
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur 7
136 14
141 Skadden
Sherman & Howard 7
173 14
185
Latham
Knobbe,&Martens,
WatkinsOlson & Bear 8
137 12
120 Latham & Watkins
Saul Ewing 8
174 12
93
Hogan
Snell & Lovells
Wilmer 9
138 6
148 Hogan Lovells
Greenspoon Marder 9
175 6
171
Morrison
Hunton & & Foerster
Williams 10
139 7
23 Morrison & Foerster
Smith, Gambrell & Russell 10
176 7
188
Cleary
Fisher &Gottlieb
Phillips 11
140 151
169 Cleary Gottlieb
Hinckley, Allen & Snyder 11
177 151
170
Vinson
Crowell&&Elkins
Moring 12
141 58
138 Irell & Manella
Vinson & Elkins 12
178 58
195
Proskauer
Benesch Rose 13
142 63
189 Proskauer Rose
Schiff Hardin 13
179 63
180
Morgan,
ThompsonLewis & Bockius
& Knight 14
143 5
179 Morgan, Lewis
Shumaker, Loop&&
Bockius
Kendrick 14
180 5
192
Kilpatrick Townsend
Morris, Manning & Martin 15
144 103
157 Kilpatrick Townsend
Allen Matkins 15
181 103
182
Mayer Brown
Buchalter 16
145 13 Mayer
BradleyBrown 16
182 13
155
Fox Rothschild
Venable 17
146 36
56 Fox Rothschild
183 36
191
Haynes andRothgerber
Lewis Roca Boone Christie 18
147 65
115 Haynes and Boone
Vedder Price 18
184 65
187
Baker Hostetler
Kasowitz 19
148 19
161 Baker Hostetler
Day Pitney 19
185 19
178
Orrick,
ProcopioHerrington
Cory & Sutcliffe 20
149 51
156 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
Lewis Brisbois 20
186 51
190
Wilmer
MarshallCutler
Dennehey 21
150 15 Wilmer Cutler Flexner
Boies Schiller 21
187 15
186
Squire Patton Boggs
Sidley Austin 22
151 8
102 Squire Patton
Honigman Boggs
Miller Schwartz 22
188 8
184
Ropes & Gray
Bracewell 23
152 41
145 Ropes & Gray
McCarter & English 23
189 41
177
Littler Mendelson
Polsinelli 24
153 30
118 Littler Mendelson
GrayRobinson 24
190 30
181
Ogletree Deakins
154 38
144 Ogletree
ChapmanDeakins
and Cutler 25
191 38
193
Duane Morris
Cole Schotz 26
155 21 Duane
Miles &Morris
Stockbridge 26
192 21
183
McGuireWoods
156 37 McGuireWoods
Gibbons 27
193 37
194
Foley
Shutts&&Lardner
Bowen 28
157 22
165 Foley
Curtis&Mallet-Prevost
Lardner 28
194 22
196
Weil,
Shook,Gotshal
Hardy & Bacon
Manges 29
158 29
163 Weil, Gotshal & Manges
LeClairRyan 29
195 29
172
Perkins Coie& Stewart
Choate Hall 30
159 16
127 Perkins Coie & Reindel
Cahill Gordon 30
196 16
173
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Bond, Schoeneck & King 31
160 42
160 Gibson,
Kobre & Dunn
Kim & Crutcher 31
197 42
198
Mintz
BarnesLevin Cohn
& Thornburg 32
161 39
124 Mintz
ArnoldLevin Cohn
& Porter 32
198 39
26
Kirkland
Goulston&&Ellis
Storrs 33
162 114
152 Kirkland & Ellis 33 114
Covington & Burling
Goodwin Procter 34
163 18
34 Covington & Burling 34 18
Nixon
Eckert Peabody
Seamans 35
164 17 Nixon Peabody 35 17
Ballard
Rutan &Spahr
Tucker 36
165 20
197 Ballard Spahr 36 20
Alston & Bird
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck 37
166 53
166 Alston & Bird 37 53
Katten
McElroyMuchin Rosenman
Deutsch Mulvaney 38
167 47
176 Katten Muchin Rosenman 38 47
Fish & Richardson
Buckley Sandler 39
168 35
174 Fish & Richardson 39 35
Shearman & Sterling
Troutman Sanders 40
169 81
61 Shearman & Sterling 40 61
Pepper
WachtellHamilton 41
170 55
154 Pepper Hamilton 41 55
Sheppard Mullin & Moore
Cravath, Swaine 42
171 59
167 Sheppard Mullin 42 59
TOP-RANKING
Baker McKenzie TWITTER FIRM
“Since establishing our Twitter profile a decade ago, we’ve evolved,

social has evolved and so has our digital strategy,” explains Baker McKen-
zie.
On Twitter, they’ve moved from broadcasting to engaging with their au-

dience through active content, building a well-defined brand voice which
keeps their followers coming back.
“Content is still king but what’s crucial for us, is knowing our audience
and giving them what they want – it’s about being authentic, informative,
live and interesting. It’s not just about what we’re saying though. We also
listen to what others are saying about us, good or bad. We want to know
what our influencers, ambassadors, advocates and forward-thinkers are
saying – they’re the ones actually shaping the legal landscape,” says the
firm.
Listening also enables Baker McKenzie to gather competitive intel to

find out what their competitors are saying and to see how people are
responding.
The firm elaborates that, “By listening, we understand our audience, we

know what’s important to them, we can monitor competitor performance,
and pluck key insights from that to include in our digital strategy. There’s
no point in listening to conversations if we don’t use that knowledge.”

Hogan Lovells 8 10
Latham & Watkins 9 4
Goodwin Procter 10 3
Holland & Knight 11 29
Twitter continues to thrive as a major platform for law
Saul Ewing 12 14
firm marketing. It’s an excellent channel for connect-
Morgan,
withLewis & Bockius 20
13 sharing
TWITTER
ing reporters and industry influencers,
Winston &and
content, Strawn
using polls. However, many14firms are19not
INDEX
using all the necessary
Greenberg Traurig best practices to15
receive max-
41
imum engagement. In fact, nearly 50 percent of firms
Kirkland & Ellis 16 13
surveyed* reported their lowest level of engagement
Seyfarth
on Shaw
Twitter. 17
Most of their tweets receive fewer 37
than
five
Mayerinteractions.
Brown The firms that did well 18
in our Twitter
57
category
Jones Day interact with other accounts, take
19 advantage
7
of unique Twitter features like polling, include visuals
Allen Matkins 20 85
with their posts, and use relevant hashtags.
Fenwick & West 21 86
Husch Blackwell 22 112
Rank Rank
Firm Name
Dechert 2018
23 2017
55
Nelson Mullins
Norton Rose Riley
Fulbright 24
1 115
8
Morrison & Foerster
Baker McKenzie 25
2 54
5
Adams and Reese & Sutcliffe
Orrick, Herrington 26
3 93
6
Rank Rank
Firm Name 2018 2017 Milbank
White & Case 27
4 191
1
Norton Rose Fulbright 1 8 Locke
CooleyLord 28
5 164
127
Baker McKenzie 2 5 Blank Rome
DLA Piper 29
6 124
2
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 3 6 McDermott Will
Squire Patton & Emery
Boggs 30
7 15
12
White & Case 4 1 Mintz
HoganLevin Cohn
Lovells 31
8 32
10
Cooley 5 127 Ice Miller& Watkins
Latham 32
9 83
4
DLA Piper 6 2 Nixon Peabody
Goodwin Procter 33
10 35
3
Squire Patton Boggs 7 12 Fox Rothschild
Holland & Knight 34
11 26
29
Hogan Lovells 8 10 Baker Donelson
Saul Ewing 35
12 50
14
Latham & Watkins 9 4 Alston
Morgan,& Bird
Lewis & Bockius 36
13 131
20
Goodwin Procter 10 3 Littler
Winston Mendelson
& Strawn 37
14 68
19
Holland & Knight 11 29 O'Melveny & Myers
15 59
41
Saul Ewing 12 14 Perkins
KirklandCoie
& Ellis 39
16 25
13
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 13 20 Wilmer
SeyfarthCutler
Shaw 40
17 60
37
Winston & Strawn 14 19 Baker
Mayer Botts
Brown 41
18 72
57
Greenberg Traurig 15 41 Covington
Jones Day & Burling 42
19 30
7
Kirkland & Ellis 16 13 Jackson Lewis
Allen Matkins 43
20 71
85
Seyfarth Shaw 17 37 Womble &
Fenwick Carlyle
West 44
21 69
86
Mayer Brown 18 57 Robins Blackwell
Husch Kaplan 45
22 17
112
Jones Day 19 7 Duane Morris
Dechert 46
23 143
55
Allen Matkins 20 85 Fragomen
24 106
115
Fenwick & West 21 86 Foley & Lardner
25 16
54
Husch Blackwell 22 112 Akin Gump
Adams and Reese 49
26 45
93
Dechert 23 55 Bracewell
Milbank 50
27 27
191
Nelson Mullins Riley 24 115 Sidley Lord
Locke Austin 51
28 136
164
Morrison & Foerster 25 54 BakerHostetler
Blank Rome 52
29 46
124
Adams and Reese 26 93 Sullivan & Cromwell
30 31
15
Milbank 27 191 Reed Smith
Mintz Levin Cohn 54
31 40
32
Locke Lord 28 164 Weil,
Ice Gotshal & Manges
Miller 55
32 53
83
Womble Carlyle 44 69 Sullivan & Worcester 81 74
Robins Kaplan 45 17 Katten Muchin Rosenman 82 113
Duane Morris 46 143 Hunton & Williams 83 39
Fragomen 47 106 Cozen O'Connor 84 76
Foley & Lardner 48 16 Foley Hoag 85 109
Akin Gump 49 45 Pillsbury 86 77
Rank Rank Rank Rank
Firm Name
Bracewell 2018
50 2017
27 Firm NameRose
Proskauer 2018
87 2017
47
Sidley Austin 1
51 8
136 Norton Rose Fulbright
Stoel Rives 1
88 8
128
Baker McKenzie
BakerHostetler 2
52 5
46 Baker
DykemaMcKenzie
Gossett 2
89 5
92
Orrick,
SullivanHerrington
& Cromwell& Sutcliffe 3
53 6
31 Orrick,
RobinsonHerrington
& Cole & Sutcliffe 3
90 6
36
White & Case
Reed Smith 4
54 1
40 White
Ropes&&Case
Gray 4
91 1
159
Cooley
Weil, Gotshal & Manges 5
55 127
53 Finnegan
Cooley 5
92 127
75
DLA Piper
Crowell & Moring 6
56 2
51 DLA Piper
Haynes and Boone 6
93 2
104
Squire Patton
Kilpatrick Boggs
Townsend 7
57 12
42 Squire
Vinson Patton
& ElkinsBoggs 7
94 12
98
Hogan Lovells
K&L Gates 8
58 10
165 Hogan Lovells
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck 8
95 10
63
Latham & Watkins
Lowenstein Sandler 9
59 4 Latham & Watkins
Arnall Golden Gregory 9
96 4
153
Goodwin
Skadden Procter 10
60 3
28 Goodwin
Barnes & Procter
Thornburg 10
97 3
22
Holland
Bradley & Knight 11
61 29
73 Holland & Knight
Snell & Wilmer 11
98 29
142
Saul
King Ewing
& Spalding 12
62 14
162 Saul Ewing
Dorsey & Whitney 12
99 14
56
Morgan,
DinsmoreLewis & Bockius
& Shohl 13
63 20
95 Morgan, LewisDaniels
Faegre Baker & Bockius 13
100 20
116
Winston & Strawn& Reed
Hughes Hubbard 14
64 19
23 Winston & Strawn
Vedder Price 14
101 19
87
Greenberg Traurig
65 41
Arnold & Porter 15
102 41
100
Kirkland & Ellis
Wilson Sonsini 16
66 13
38 Kirkland & Ellis
Kramer Levin 16
103 13
150
Seyfarth
Steptoe &Shaw
Johnson 17
67 37
157 Seyfarth Shaw
Paul Weiss 17
104 37
97
Mayer Brown
Bryan Cave 18
68 57
11 Mayer
Shook,Brown
Hardy & Bacon 18
105 57
18
Jones
Cleary Day
Gottlieb 19
69 7
156 Jones Day
106 7
111
Allen Matkins
Polsinelli 20
70 85
91 Allen MatkinsMarder
Greenspoon 20
107 85
110
Fenwick & West
71 86
70 Fenwick & West& Phillips
Manatt, Phelps 21
108 86
80
Husch Blackwell
McGuireWoods 22
72 112
49 Husch Blackwell
Paul Hastings 22
109 112
148
Dechert
Troutman Sanders 23
73 55
187 Dechert
Goulston & Storrs 23
110 55
133
Nelson Mullins Riley
Wiley Rein 24
74 115
105 Nelson Mullins
Procopio Cory Riley 24
111 115
119
Morrison
Shearman&&Foerster
Sterling 25
75 54
173 Morrison
Akerman & Foerster 25
112 54
64
Adams and Reese
76 93
125 Adams and&Reese
Davis Polk Wardwell 26
113 93
168
Milbank
Holland & Hart 27
77 191
79 Milbank
Fried Frank 27
114 191
99
Locke
PepperLord
Hamilton 28
78 164
81 Locke Lord
Lewis Roca 28
115 164
120
Blank
DrinkerRome
Biddle & Reath 29
79 124
88 Blank RomeCoburn
Thompson 29
116 124
62
McDermott Will & Emery
Ballard Spahr 30
80 15
43 McDermott Will & Emery
Goldberg Segalla 30
117 15
Mintz Levin
Sullivan Cohn
& Worcester 31
81 32
74 Mintz Levin Cohn
Cole Schotz 31
118 32
Ice Miller
Katten Muchin Rosenman 32
82 83
113 Ice Miller & Culbertson
Hinshaw 32
119 83
118
Nixon
HuntonPeabody
& Williams 33
83 35
39 Nixon Peabody
Dickinson Wright 33
120 35
174
Fox Rothschild
Cozen O'Connor 34
84 26
76 Fox Rothschild
Cadwalader 34
121 26
21
Baker Donelson
Foley Hoag 35
85 50
109 Baker Donelson
122 50
186
Alston & Bird
Pillsbury 36
86 131
77 Alston & Bird
Sheppard Mullin 36
123 131
24
Littler Mendelson
Proskauer Rose 37
87 68
47 Littler
Fish &Mendelson
Richardson 37
124 68
48
O'Melveny
Stoel Rives & Myers 38
88 59
128 O'Melveny
Benesch & Myers 38
125 59
172
Perkins
DykemaCoie
Gossett 39
89 25
92 Perkins Coie
Arent Fox 39
126 25
67
Wilmer
RobinsonCutler
& Cole 40
90 60
36 Wilmer Cutler
127 60
61
Baker
RopesBotts
& Gray 41
91 72
159 Baker
CarltonBotts
Fields Jorden Burt 41
128 72
146
Finnegan & Burling
Covington 42
92 30
75 Covington & Burling
129 30
129
Cole Schotz 118 Thompson Hine 155 94
Hinshaw & Culbertson 119 118 Choate Hall & Stewart 156 183
Dickinson Wright 120 174 Shutts & Bowen 157 65
Cadwalader 121 21 Eckert Seamans 158
Patterson Belknap 122 186 Stinson Leonard Street 159 151
Sheppard Mullin 123 24 Sherman & Howard 160 180
Rank Rank Rank Rank
Firm Name
124 2017
48 Firm
BrownName
Rudnick 2018
161 2017
135
Norton
BeneschRose Fulbright 1
125 8
172 Norton
WilliamsRose Fulbright
Mullen 1
162 8
177
Baker McKenzie
Arent Fox 2
126 5
67 Baker McKenzie
Michael Best & Friedrich 2
163 5
82
Orrick, Herrington
Hinckley, & Sutcliffe
Allen & Snyder 3
127 6
61 Orrick,
WinsteadHerrington & Sutcliffe 3
164 6
170
White & Fields
Carlton Case Jorden Burt 4
128 1
146 White
Morris,& Manning
Case & Martin 4
165 1
163
Cooley
129 127
129 Cooley
GrayRobinson 5
166 127
114
DLA PiperDeakins
Ogletree 6
130 2
52 DLA Piper and Cutler
Chapman 6
167 2
160
Squire Patton
Buchanan Boggs
Ingersoll & Rooney 7
131 12
122 Squire Patton
Marshall Boggs
Dennehey 7
168 12
Hogan
StroockLovells
& Stroock & Lavan 8
132 10
190 Hogan
Phelps Lovells
Dunbar 8
169 139
10
Latham & Watkins
Loeb & Loeb 9
133 4
108 Latham
Gordon & Watkins
Rees Scully Mansukhani 9
170 4
138
Goodwin
McCarter Procter
& English 10
134 3
166 Goodwin Procter
Day Pitney 10
171 3
134
Frost Brown
Holland Todd
& Knight 11
135 29
144 Holland
Moore &&Van
Knight
Allen 11
172 29
182
Saul
ClarkEwing
Hill 12
136 14
117 Saul Ewing
173 14
184
Lane Powell 13
137 20
101 Morgan, Lewis
Armstrong & Bockius
Teasdale 13
174 20
147
Winston
Jackson & Strawn
Walker 14
138 19
171 Winston
Thompson& Strawn
& Knight 14
175 19
152
Greenberg Traurig
139 41
66 Greenberg
Kasowitz Traurig 15
176 41
155
Kirkland & Ellis
Miles & Stockbridge 16
140 13
33 Kirkland
Cravath, &Swaine
Ellis & Moore 16
177 13
58
Seyfarth Shaw
Lewis Brisbois 17
141 37
141 Buckley Sandler
Seyfarth Shaw 17
178 37
158
Mayer
Willkie Brown
Farr & Gallagher 18
142 57
167 Mayer Brown
179 57
126
Jones Day
Quarles & Brady 19
143 7
123 Jones
Kobre Day
& Kim 19
180 7
102
Allen Matkins
Buchalter 20
144 85 Allen Matkins
181 85
132
Fenwick & West
Schiff Hardin 21
145 86
90 Fenwick & West
182 86
Husch Blackwell
Burr & Forman 22
146 112
149 Husch Blackwell
LeClairRyan 22
183 112
145
Dechert
Bond, Schoeneck & King 23
147 55
130 Dechert
Rutan & Tucker 23
184 55
189
Nelson
SchulteMullins
Roth & Riley
Zabel 24
148 115
103 Nelson Mullins Riley
Irell & Manella 24
185 115
137
Morrison
Shumaker,& Loop
Foerster
& Kendrick 25
149 54
107 Morrison & Foerster
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell 25
186 54
181
Adams
Lathropand Reese
& Gage 26
150 93
89 Adams and Reese
Cahill Gordon & Reindel 26
187 93
191
Milbank
Wilson Elser Moskowitz 27
151 191
169 Milbank
188 191
Locke Lord
Vorys Sater 28
152 164
154 Locke Lord
Kutak Rock 28
189 164
191
Blank Rome Paddock
Miller Canfield 29
153 124
78 Blank Rome
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 29
190 124
191
McDermott Will & Emery
Jenner & Block 30
154 15
44 McDermott Will & Emery
Quinn Emanuel 30
191 15
191
Mintz LevinHine
Thompson Cohn 31
155 32
94 Mintz Levin Cohn
Wachtell 31
192 32
191
Ice MillerHall & Stewart
Choate 32
156 83
183 Ice Miller
Venable 32
193 83
188
Nixon
ShuttsPeabody
& Bowen 33
157 35
65 Nixon Peabody
Williams & Connolly 33
194 35
191
Fox Rothschild
Eckert Seamans 34
158 26 Fox Rothschild
Boies Schiller Flexner 34
195 26
84
Baker Donelson
Stinson Leonard Street 35
159 50
151 Baker
Curtis Donelson
Mallet-Prevost 35
196 50
Alston
Sherman& Bird
& Howard 36
160 131
180 Alston
McElroy& Deutsch
Bird Mulvaney 36
197 131
178
Littler
BrownMendelson
Rudnick 37
161 68
135 Littler
Gibbons Mendelson 37
198 68
179
O'Melveny & Myers
Williams Mullen 38
162 59
177 O'Melveny & Myers 38 59
Perkins
Michael Coie
Best & Friedrich 39
163 25
82 Perkins Coie 39 25
Wilmer
WinsteadCutler 40
164 60
170 Wilmer Cutler 40 60
Baker
Morris,Botts
Manning & Martin 41
165 72
163 Baker Botts 41 72
Covington & Burling
GrayRobinson 42
166 30
114 Covington & Burling 42 30
TOP-RANKING
White & Case LINKEDIN FIRM
“Our No. 1 ranking thrills us. We have been work- White & Case also uses animation in a similar way,
ing hard to build our client and employer brand by when they’re announcing news such as awards or im-
growing and developing our LinkedIn presence,” portant milestones. Hertz believes that using video or
says White & Case CMO Michael Hertz. animation makes it more interesting to the user and
helps to bring the firm’s message across in a more
White & Case has greatly improved their LinkedIn engaging way.
presence in the past year, as they have moved up
47 positions in our annual ranking. “Overall, we see an uptick in the readership of our
content—due in large part to the use of Elevate,
“LinkedIn supports our overall digital strategy by advertising, and the use of video and animation,”
helping us make powerful connections between says Hertz.
our people, our thinking, and our clients in a way
that supports our position as a global elite law
firm. Obviously, developing interesting, impactful
content is also a key part of our digital communica-
tions,” says Hertz.
The firm also takes advantage of LinkedIn Elevate,

the platform’s proprietary employee advocacy
tool. White & Case utilizes this tool to empower
their lawyers to engage with their networks more
regularly by sharing relevant, approved content on
issues that matter to them. Another tool they take
advantage of is paid advertising. Hertz says, “We
use paid advertising to build our reputation in areas
of strategic priority for the firm. LinkedIn advertis-
ing is very useful in that it enables us to target our
audiences with content relevant to them, based on
their role or industry.”
One of the most noteworthy aspects of White & Michael Hertz

Case’s LinkedIn page was their use of engaging
multimedia. This year, as we placed a higher em-
phasis on content quality and engagement, the
firm’s use of video stood out. Hertz explains the
firm’s philosophy: “Video is increasingly important
across all major social networks, and we know that
native videos get higher visibility and engagement
than any other posts. This is a good reason to use
video on social when we have something that we
really want to get in front of our audience.”

Jones Day 8 40
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 9 54
Fragomen 10 19
LinkedIn continues to dominate as Big Law’s pre-
Mayer Brown 12 44
ferred social channel. Seventy-five percent of law
LINKEDIN
Skadden
firms find LinkedIn to be the most valuable 13 platform21
for marketing
King & Spaldingand business development 14efforts. 18
Top
INDEX
law firms in
Sidley Austin this category post non-promotional,
15 origi-
73
nal content often and many use multimedia content in
Dechert 16 8
the form of videos or infographics to keep their feeds
Crowell
engaging.& Moring 17 use this34
Some law firms still struggle to
platform inWill
McDermott an&educational
Emery and informative
18 way with1
more of
K&L Gates an emphasis on firm announcements
19 and 50
achievements rather than thought leadership.
Morrison & Foerster 20 9
Jackson Lewis 22 17
Rank Rank
Firm Name& Burling
Covington 2018
23 2017
24
Davis
White Polk & Wardwell
& Case 24
1 187
48
Shearman & Sterling
Baker McKenzie 25
2 132
2
Rank Rank Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher

DLA Piper 26
3 156
4
Firm Name 2018 2017 Wilmer CutlerFulbright
Norton Rose 27
4 16
15
White & Case 1 48 Kirkland & Ellis
5 184
7
Baker McKenzie 2 2 Hogan Lovells
BakerHostetler 29
6 20
6
DLA Piper 3 4 Greenberg Traurig
Latham & Watkins 30
7 12
14
Norton Rose Fulbright 4 15 Arnold & Porter
Jones Day 31
8 41
40
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 5 7 Debevoise & Plimpton
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 32
9 115
54
Hogan Lovells 6 6 Sullivan
Fragomen & Cromwell 33
10 67
19
Latham & Watkins 7 14 Wilson
HollandSonsini
& Knight 34
11 148
33
Jones Day 8 40 Perkins Coie
Mayer Brown 35
12 39
44
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 9 54 Troutman
Skadden Sanders 36
13 147
21
Fragomen 10 19 Reed
King &Smith
Spalding 37
14 30
18
Holland & Knight 11 33 Willkie Farr & Gallagher
Sidley Austin 38
15 186
73
Mayer Brown 12 44 Cleary
DechertGottlieb 39
16 123
8
Skadden 13 21 Proskauer Rose
Crowell & Moring 40
17 27
34
King & Spalding 14 18 McGuireWoods
18 55
1
Sidley Austin 15 73 Foley & Lardner
K&L Gates 42
19 57
50
Dechert 16 8 Weil, Gotshal
Morrison & Manges
& Foerster 43
20 68
9
Crowell & Moring 17 34 Sheppard
Squire Mullin
Patton Boggs 44
21 64
31
McDermott Will & Emery 18 1 PattersonLewis
Jackson Belknap 45
22 125
17
K&L Gates 19 50 Kobre & Kim
23 92
24
Morrison & Foerster 20 9 Finnegan
24 112
187
Squire Patton Boggs 21 31 Arent Fox & Sterling
Shearman 48
25 185
132
Jackson Lewis 22 17 Lowenstein
Gibson, Sandler
Dunn & Crutcher 49
26 159
156
Covington & Burling 23 24 Akin Gump
Wilmer Cutler 50
27 143
16
Davis Polk & Wardwell 24 187 Goodwin&Procter
Kirkland Ellis 51
28 28
184
Shearman & Sterling 25 132 Littler Mendelson
BakerHostetler 52
29 11
20
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher 26 156 Allen Matkins
30 47
12
Wilmer Cutler 27 16 Vorys Sater
Arnold & Porter 54
31 158
41
Kirkland & Ellis 28 184 O'Melveny &
Debevoise & Plimpton
Myers 55
32 5
115
Sheppard Mullin 44 64 Smith, Gambrell & Russell 81 127
Patterson Belknap 45 125 McCarter & English 82 76
Kobre & Kim 46 92 Baker Botts 83 49
Finnegan 47 112 Dickinson Wright 84 128
Arent Fox 48 185 Holland & Hart 85 84
Lowenstein Sandler 49 159 Hughes Hubbard & Reed 86 43
Rank Rank Rank Rank
Firm Name
Akin Gump 2018
50 2017
143 Firm
HuschName
Blackwell 2018
87 2017
77
Goodwin
White Procter
& Case 51
1 28
48 Quarles
White & Brady
& Case 88
1 102
48
Littler Mendelson
Baker McKenzie 52
2 11
2 Winstead
Baker McKenzie 89
2 111
2
AllenPiper
DLA Matkins 53
3 47
4 Kilpatrick
DLA PiperTownsend 90
3 126
4
Vorys Sater
4 158
15 Carlton Rose
Norton FieldsFulbright
Jorden Burt 91
4 91
15
O'Melveny
Orrick, & Myers& Sutcliffe
Herrington 55
5 75 Goldberg
Orrick, Segalla & Sutcliffe
Herrington 92
5 37
7
Hogan Lovells
Frost Brown Todd 56
6 163
6 Hogan Lovells
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney 93
6 88
6
Haynes &
Latham and Boone
Watkins 57
7 77
14 Morris, Manning
Latham & Martin
& Watkins 94
7 59
14
VinsonDay
Jones & Elkins 58
8 69
40 BrownDay
Jones Rudnick 95
8 120
40
Barnes &Lewis
Morgan, Thornburg
& Bockius 59
9 65
54 ProcopioLewis
Morgan, Cory & Bockius 96
9 156
54
Baker Donelson
Fragomen 60
10 104
19 Greenspoon Marder
Fragomen 97
10 132
19
Miles & Stockbridge
Holland & Knight 61
11 76
33 Blank Rome
Holland & Knight 98
11 50
33
LathropBrown
Mayer & Gage 62
12 166
44 Locke Lord
Mayer Brown 99
12 31
44
Stoel Rives
Skadden 63
13 155
21 Foley Hoag
Skadden 100
13 140
21
Fenwick
King & West
& Spalding 64
14 72
18 Robinson
King & Cole
& Spalding 101
14 99
18
SullivanAustin
Sidley & Worcester 65
15 43
73 Winston
Sidley & Strawn
Austin 102
15 124
73
Dorsey & Whitney
Dechert 66
16 25
8 Jenner & Block
Dechert 103
16 8
Paul Hastings
Crowell & Moring 67
17 63
34 Ropes &&Gray
Crowell Moring 104
17 71
34
Alston & Bird
18 42
1 Bradley
18 24
1
Ice Miller
K&L Gates 69
19 138
50 Adams
K&L and Reese
Gates 106
19 40
50
Buckley Sandler
20 130
9 Stroock &&Stroock
Morrison Foerster& Lavan 107
20 62
9
McElroy
Squire Deutsch
Patton Mulvaney
Boggs 71
21 136
31 Sherman
Squire & Howard
Patton Boggs 108
21 68
31
Fisher & Phillips
Jackson Lewis 72
22 56
17 Gordon Rees
Jackson LewisScully Mansukhani 109
22 129
17
Wilson Elser
Covington Moskowitz
& Burling 73
23 157
24 Katten Muchin
Covington Rosenman
& Burling 110
23 141
24
Fox Rothschild
24 94
187 Thompson
Davis Coburn
Polk & Wardwell 111
24 142
187
Bracewell & Sterling
Shearman 75
25 149
132 Day Pitney& Sterling
Shearman 112
25 33
132
Saul Ewing
26 36
156 Snell & Wilmer
26 39
156
Thompson
Wilmer Hine
Cutler 77
27 193
16 Hinckley,
Wilmer Allen & Snyder
Cutler 114
27 117
16
Ballard Spahr
Kirkland & Ellis 78
28 131
184 Lewis Roca
Kirkland Rothgerber Christie
& Ellis 115
28 121
184
Milbank
BakerHostetler 79
29 61
20 Drinker Biddle & Reath
BakerHostetler 116
29 54
20
Fish & Richardson
30 115
12 Lewis Brisbois
30 161
12
Smith, Gambrell
Arnold & Porter & Russell 81
31 127
41 Dinsmore
Arnold & Shohl
& Porter 118
31 150
41
McCarter &&English
Debevoise Plimpton 82
32 76
115 Nelson Mullins
Debevoise Riley
& Plimpton 119
32 81
115
Baker Botts
Sullivan & Cromwell 83
33 49
67 Ogletree&Deakins
Sullivan Cromwell 120
33 37
67
Dickinson
Wilson Wright
Sonsini 84
34 128
148 Fried Frank
Wilson Sonsini 121
34 23
148
Holland Coie
Perkins & Hart 85
35 84
39 Shook, Hardy
Perkins Coie & Bacon 122
35 171
39
Hughes Hubbard
Troutman Sanders& Reed 86
36 43
147 Buchalter Sanders
Troutman 123
36 147
HuschSmith
Reed Blackwell 87
37 77
30 Jackson
Reed Walker
Smith 124
37 129
30
QuarlesFarr
Willkie & Brady
& Gallagher 88
38 102
186 Seyfarth
Willkie Shaw
Farr & Gallagher 125
38 85
186
Winstead
Cleary Gottlieb 89
39 111
123 FaegreGottlieb
Cleary Baker Daniels 126
39 139
123
Kilpatrick Townsend
Proskauer Rose 90
40 126
27 Duane Morris
Proskauer Rose 127
40 145
27
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt
McGuireWoods 91
41 91
55 Burr & Forman
McGuireWoods 128
41 78
55
Goldberg
Foley Segalla
& Lardner 92
42 37
57 Cadwalader
Foley & Lardner 129
42 124
57
Dinsmore & Shohl 118 150 Schiff Hardin 155 75
Nelson Mullins Riley 119 81 Polsinelli 156 61
Ogletree Deakins 120 37 Nixon Peabody 157 116
Fried Frank 121 23 Lane Powell 158 90
Shook, Hardy & Bacon 122 171 Kramer Levin 159 152
Buchalter 123 Honigman Miller Schwartz 160 127
Rank Rank Rank Rank
Firm Name
Jackson Walker 2018
124 2017
129 Firm
QuinnName
Emanuel 2018
161 2017
190
Seyfarth
White Shaw
& Case 125
1 85
48 Davis Wright
White & CaseTremaine 162
1 170
48
FaegreMcKenzie
Baker Baker Daniels 126
2 139
2 CozenMcKenzie
Baker O'Connor 163
2 195
2
Duane
DLA Morris
Piper 127
3 145
4 MillerPiper
DLA Canfield Paddock 164
3 113
4
Burr & Forman
4 78
15 Hinshaw
Norton & Culbertson
Rose Fulbright 165
4 150
15
Cadwalader
5 124
7 Shutts &
Orrick, Bowen & Sutcliffe
Herrington 166
5 35
7
WilliamsLovells
Hogan Mullen 130
6 153
6 SchulteLovells
Hogan Roth & Zabel 167
6 189
6
Vedder Price
Latham & Watkins 131
7 66
14 Simpson&Thacher
Latham Watkins & Bartlett 168
7 191
14
Brownstein
Jones Day Hyatt Farber Schreck 132
8 98
40 Boies Schiller
Jones Day Flexner 169
8 128
40
Womble Lewis
Morgan, Carlyle& Bockius 133
9 52
54 Choate Hall
Morgan, & Stewart
Lewis & Bockius 170
9 174
54
Dykema Gossett
Fragomen 134
10 142
19 Cravath, Swaine & Moore
Fragomen 171
10 59
19
Manatt, &
Holland Phelps
Knight& Phillips 135
11 46
33 Kutak Rock
Holland & Knight 172
11 181
33
StinsonBrown
Mayer Leonard Street 136
12 141
44 Clark Hill
Mayer Brown 173
12 107
44
Robins Kaplan
Skadden 137
13 96
21 Munger, Tolles & Olson
Skadden 174
13 197
21
Armstrong
King Teasdale
& Spalding 138
14 161
18 Steptoe
King & Johnson
& Spalding 175
14 172
18
Akerman
Sidley Austin 139
15 91
73 Shumaker,
Sidley Loop & Kendrick
Austin 176
15 95
73
Wiley Rein
Dechert 140
16 140
8 Bryan Cave
Dechert 177
16 22
8
Mintz Levin
Crowell Cohn
& Moring 141
17 87
34 Pillsbury& Moring
Crowell 178
17 114
34
Cole SchotzWill & Emery
McDermott 142
18 1 Wachtell Will & Emery
McDermott 179
18 194
1
Chapman
K&L Gatesand Cutler 143
19 160
50 Venable
K&L Gates 180
19 192
50
Benesch & Foerster
Morrison 144
20 102
9 Pepper Hamilton
20 106
9
Paul Weiss
21 161
31 Porter Wright
Squire Patton Morris
Boggs & Arthur 182
21 135
31
Arnall Golden
Jackson LewisGregory 146
22 101
17 Thompson
Jackson & Knight
Lewis 183
22 100
17
Goulston &&Storrs
Covington Burling 147
23 176
24 Kelley Drye&&Burling
Covington Warren 184
23 188
24
CooleyPolk & Wardwell
Davis 148
24 175
187 Knobbe,
Davis Martens,
Polk Olson & Bear
& Wardwell 185
24 165
187
Phelps Dunbar
Shearman & Sterling 149
25 178
132 Kasowitz & Sterling
Shearman 186
25 179
132
Hunton &Dunn
Gibson, Williams
& Crutcher 150
26 79
156 Cahill Gordon
Gibson, Reindel
Dunn & Crutcher 187
26 196
156
MarshallCutler
Wilmer Dennehey 151
27 16 GrayRobinson
Wilmer Cutler 188
27 144
16
Michael Best
Kirkland & Friedrich
& Ellis 152
28 97
184 Moore & &Van
Kirkland Allen
Ellis 189
28 164
184
Loeb & Loeb
BakerHostetler 153
29 110
20 LeClairRyan
BakerHostetler 190
29 168
20
Curtis Mallet-Prevost
30 84
12 Bond, Schoeneck
Greenberg Traurig & King 191
30 99
12
Schiff Hardin
Arnold & Porter 155
31 75
41 Herrick,&Feinstein
Arnold Porter 192
31 41
Polsinelli & Plimpton
Debevoise 156
32 61
115 Irell & Manella
32 183
115
Nixon Peabody
33 116
67 Gibbons& Cromwell
Sullivan 194
33 180
67
Lane Powell
Wilson Sonsini 158
34 90
148 Eckert Seamans
Wilson Sonsini 195
34 148
Kramer Levin
Perkins Coie 159
35 152
39 Rutan &Coie
Perkins Tucker 196
35 126
39
HonigmanSanders
Troutman Miller Schwartz 160
36 127
147 Jeffer Mangels
Troutman Butler & Mitchell
Sanders 197
36 182
147
QuinnSmith
Reed Emanuel 161
37 190
30 Williams
Reed & Connolly
Smith 198
37 198
30
Davis Wright
Willkie Farr & Tremaine
Gallagher 162
38 170
186 Willkie Farr & Gallagher 38 186
Cozen Gottlieb
Cleary O'Connor 163
39 195
123 Cleary Gottlieb 39 123
Miller Canfield
Proskauer RosePaddock 164
40 113
27 Proskauer Rose 40 27
Hinshaw & Culbertson
McGuireWoods 165
41 150
55 McGuireWoods 41 55
Shutts&&Lardner
Foley Bowen 166
42 35
57 Foley & Lardner 42 57
TOP-RANKING
Shumaker, Loop FACEBOOK

FIRM
& Kendrick
“I was surprised that we were ranked so high, but really
excited that our Facebook page is getting engagement.
Our goal for our social media presence has been to high-
light our community involvement in all of our markets, and
to share good news about the firm, our attorneys, and staff.
We also want visitors to have a sense of our firm culture
– Shumaker really is a great place to work and we want to
share that!”
-Jennifer Malin, Director of Marketing
Jennifer Malin

Dykema Gossett 7 112
Baker Donelson 8 5
Lowenstein Sandler 10 105
Starting the year off with the Cambridge Analytica
Greenspoon Marder 12 19
scandal made it a turbulent year for Facebook. Some
FACEBOOK
Fox
usersRothschild
vowed to delete Facebook to stand 36
13 up against
data breaches
Porter and&invasions
Wright Morris Arthur of privacy. 14
How did 108this
INDEX
affect law firms’ activity on
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe the platform?15 A lot. The
28
overall number of posts and engagement fell for Am
Vorys Sater 16 64
Law 200 firms in 2018. This decline may also reflect
Cooley
a shift in priorities: Facebook typically works17 best17for
B2C firms.
Lewis B2B law firms
Roca Rothgerber appear to have18
Christie refocused9 on
content shared
Baker McKenzie on Twitter, LinkedIn, and19Instagram.1
Nelson Mullins Riley 20 53
Lewis Brisbois 21 78
Bond, Schoeneck & King 22 93
Rank Rank
Firm Name
Buckley Sandler 2018
23 2017
116
Jones Day
Nixon Peabody 24
1 13
47
Norton Rose
Shumaker, Fulbright
Loop & Kendrick 25
2 8
46
Rank Rank Shutts & Bowen

Baker Botts 26
3 86
56
Firm Name 2018 2017 Polsinelli
White & Case 27
4 38
6
Nixon Peabody 1 47 Winston & Strawn
Sidley Austin 28
5 161
18
Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick 2 46 DLA Piper
Robins Kaplan 29
6 27
3
Baker Botts 3 56 Carlton
DykemaFields Jorden Burt
Gossett 30
7 103
112
White & Case 4 6 Benesch
Baker Donelson 31
8 52
5
Sidley Austin 5 18 Greenberg Traurig
Holland & Knight 32
9 10
20
DLA Piper 6 3 Fenwick & West
Lowenstein Sandler 33
10 11
105
Dykema Gossett 7 112 Haynes
Latham and Boone
& Watkins 34
11 32
4
Baker Donelson 8 5 Stinson Leonard
Greenspoon Street
Marder 35
12 81
19
Holland & Knight 9 20 Lathrop & Gage
Fox Rothschild 36
13 69
36
Lowenstein Sandler 10 105 Adams and Reese
14 51
108
Latham & Watkins 11 4 Skadden
15 7
28
Greenspoon Marder 12 19 Miles
Vorys &Sater
Stockbridge 39
16 155
64
Fox Rothschild 13 36 Steptoe
Cooley & Johnson 40
17 151
17
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur 14 108 Schiff
Lewis Hardin
Roca Rothgerber Christie 41
18 110
9
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 15 28 Saul
BakerEwing
McKenzie 42
19 149
1
Vorys Sater 16 64 K&L Gates
20 34
53
Cooley 17 17 Littler Mendelson
Lewis Brisbois 44
21 63
78
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie 18 9 Covington
Bond, & Burling
Schoeneck & King 45
22 96
93
Baker McKenzie 19 1 Sheppard
Buckley Mullin
Sandler 46
23 29
116
Nelson Mullins Riley 20 53 Loeb &Day
Jones Loeb 47
24 89
13
Lewis Brisbois 21 78 Troutman
Norton Sanders
Rose Fulbright 48
25 106
8
Bond, Schoeneck & King 22 93 Finnegan
Shutts & Bowen 49
26 73
86
Buckley Sandler 23 116 Quarles & Brady
Polsinelli 50
27 14
38
Jones Day 24 13 Ballard Spahr
Winston & Strawn 51
28 100
161
Norton Rose Fulbright 25 8 Mayer Brown
Robins Kaplan 52
29 23
27
Shutts & Bowen 26 86 JacksonFields
Carlton LewisJorden Burt 53
30 22
103
Polsinelli 27 38 Jackson Walker
Benesch 54
31 75
52
Winston & Strawn 28 161 Ice Miller Traurig
Greenberg 55
32 55
10
Littler Mendelson 44 63 Brown Rudnick 81 127
Covington & Burling 45 96 Foley Hoag 82 76
Sheppard Mullin 46 29 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear 83 49
Loeb & Loeb 47 89 Alston & Bird 84 128
Troutman Sanders 48 106 Reed Smith 85 84
Finnegan 49 73 Cozen O'Connor 86 43
Rank Rank Rank Rank
Firm Name
Quarles & Brady 2018
50 2017
14 Firm Name
Procopio Cory 2018
87 2017
77
Nixon
BallardPeabody
Spahr 1
51 47
100 Nixon Peabody
88 47
102
Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick
Mayer Brown 2
52 46
23 Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick
Fisher & Phillips 2
89 46
111
Baker Botts
Jackson Lewis 3
53 56
22 Baker Botts
Robinson & Cole 3
90 56
126
White & Case
Jackson Walker 4
54 6
75 White & Phelps
Manatt, Case & Phillips 4
91 6
91
Sidley Austin
Ice Miller 5
55 18
55 GrayRobinson
Sidley Austin 5
92 18
37
DLA Piper
Dechert 6
56 3
26 DLA Piper
Williams Mullen 6
93 3
88
Dykema Gossett
Snell & Wilmer 7
57 112
67 Dykema
DinsmoreGossett
& Shohl 7
94 112
59
Baker Donelson
58 5
87 Baker Donelson
Goulston & Storrs 8
95 5
120
Holland
Goldberg& Segalla
Knight 9
59 20 Holland & Knight
Shook, Hardy & Bacon 9
96 20
156
Lowenstein
Davis WrightSandler
Tremaine 10
60 105
44 Lowenstein Sandler & Rooney
Buchanan Ingersoll 10
97 105
132
Latham & Townsend
Kilpatrick Watkins 11
61 4
60 Latham
Milbank & Watkins 11
98 4
50
Greenspoon Marder
Dickinson Wright 12
62 19
99 19
31
Fox Rothschild
63 36
12 Fox Rothschild
McCarter & English 13
100 36
140
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur
Bracewell 14
64 108
98 Porter
VedderWright
Price Morris & Arthur 14
101 108
99
Orrick, Herrington
Arnall Golden & Sutcliffe
Gregory 15
65 28
161 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
Pillsbury 15
102 28
124
Vorys
WilsonSater
Sonsini 16
66 64
97 Vorys Sater
Cole Schotz 16
103 64
Cooley
Phelps Dunbar 17
67 17
58 Cooley
Drinker Biddle & Reath 17
104 17
71
Lewis RocaHine
Thompson Rothgerber Christie 18
68 9
148 Lewis
DuaneRoca Rothgerber Christie
Morris 18
105 9
24
Baker McKenzie
69 1
42 Baker
Bryan McKenzie
Cave 19
106 1
40
Nelson Mullins
Brownstein Riley
Hyatt Farber Schreck 20
70 53
80 Nelson
SeyfarthMullins
Shaw Riley 20
107 53
62
Lewis
HuntonBrisbois
& Williams 21
71 78
160 Lewis Brisbois
Mintz Levin Cohn 21
108 78
68
Bond, Schoeneck & King
Allen Matkins 22
72 93
94 Bond, Schoeneck
Cravath, Swaine &&Moore
King 22
109 93
129
Buckley
ThompsonSandler
& Knight 23
73 116
92 Buckley Sandler
Wilmer Cutler 23
110 116
141
Jones Day Teasdale
Armstrong 24
74 13
72 Jones
ArnoldDay
& Porter 24
111 13
142
McGuireWoods 25
75 8
41 Norton
Foley &Rose Fulbright
Lardner 25
112 8
33
Shutts
Morris,&Manning
Bowen & Martin 26
76 86
161 Shutts
Bradley& Bowen 26
113 86
39
Polsinelli
Stoel Rives 27
77 38
85 Polsinelli
Day Pitney 27
114 38
117
Winston & Strawn
Paul Weiss 28
78 161
131 Winston & Strawn
Burr & Forman 28
115 161
121
Robins Kaplan
Paul Hastings 29
79 27
61 Robins
SullivanKaplan
& Worcester 29
116 27
54
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt
Hogan Lovells 30
80 103
115 Carlton
Jenner &Fields
BlockJorden Burt 30
117 103
161
Benesch
Brown Rudnick 31
81 52
127 Benesch
118 52
150
Greenberg
Foley HoagTraurig 32
82 10
Dorsey & Whitney 32
119 10
83
Fenwick
Knobbe, & West Olson & Bear
Martens, 33
83 11
49 Fenwick & WestRosenman
Katten Muchin 33
120 11
95
Haynes
Alston &and
BirdBoone 34
84 32
Pepper Hamilton 34
121 32
70
Stinson Leonard Street
Reed Smith 35
85 81
84 Stinson Leonard
Choate Hall Street
& Stewart 35
122 81
161
Lathrop & Gage
Cozen O'Connor 36
86 69
43 Lathrop
McElroy &Deutsch
Gage Mulvaney 36
123 69
122
Adams and
Procopio Reese
Cory 37
87 51
77 Adams and Reese
Fried Frank 37
124 51
161
Skadden
88 7
102 Skadden
Perkins Coie 38
125 7
30
Miles
Fisher&&Stockbridge
Phillips 39
89 155
111 Miles
Kramer& Stockbridge
Levin 39
126 155
145
Steptoe
Robinson& &Johnson
Cole 40
90 151
126 Steptoe & Johnson
Arent Fox 40
127 151
143
Schiff
Manatt,Hardin
Phelps & Phillips 41
91 110
91 Schiff
VinsonHardin
& Elkins 41
128 110
147
GrayRobinson
Saul Ewing 42
92 149
37 Saul
FrostEwing
Brown Todd 42
129 149
118
Debevoise & Plimpton 118 150 Schulte Roth & Zabel 155 161
Dorsey & Whitney 119 83 Goodwin Procter 156 21
Katten Muchin Rosenman 120 95 Blank Rome 157 161
Pepper Hamilton 121 70 Williams & Connolly 158 161
Choate Hall & Stewart 122 161 Wilson Elser Moskowitz 159 133
McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney 123 122 Wiley Rein 160 161
Rank Rank Rank Rank
Firm
FriedName
Frank 2018
124 2017
161 Firm Nameand Cutler
Chapman 2018
161 2017
161
Nixon
PerkinsPeabody
Coie 1
125 47
30 Nixon Peabody
Proskauer Rose 1
162 47
134
Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick
Kramer Levin 2
126 46
145 Shumaker,
Locke LordLoop & Kendrick 2
163 46
161
Baker Botts
Arent Fox 3
127 56
143 Baker Botts
Ogletree Deakins 3
164 56
161
White
Vinson&&Case
Elkins 4
128 6
147 White
Barnes&&Case
Thornburg 4
165 6
161
Sidley AustinTodd
Frost Brown 5
129 18
118 Sidley
HughesAustin
Hubbard & Reed 5
166 18
161
DLA Piper & Sterling
Shearman 6
130 3
138 DLA Piper
Marshall Dennehey 6
167 3
Dykema Gossett
Quinn Emanuel 7
131 112
136 Dykema Gossett
BakerHostetler 7
168 112
119
Baker DonelsonButler & Mitchell
Jeffer Mangels 8
132 5
125 Baker
FaegreDonelson
Baker Daniels 8
169 5
35
Holland Knight
Crowell & Moring 9
133 20
161 Holland & Knight
Kutak Rock 9
170 20
161
Lowenstein
Buchalter Sandler 10
134 105 Lowenstein
Willkie Farr &Sandler
Gallagher 10
171 105
161
Akerman& Watkins
Latham 11
135 4
161 Latham
Ropes &&Gray
Watkins 11
171 4
161
Greenspoon Marder
Rutan & Tucker 12
136 19
171 19
152
Fox
KingRothschild
& Spalding 13
137 36
161 Fox
AkinRothschild
Gump 13
171 36
161
Porter
Cleary Wright
GottliebMorris & Arthur 14
138 108
161 Porter Wright Morris & Arthur
Wachtell 14
171 108
154
Orrick, Herrington
O'Melveny & Myers& Sutcliffe 15
139 28
130 Orrick,
FragomenHerrington & Sutcliffe 15
171 28
16
Vorys Sater& Wardwell
Davis Polk 16
140 64
158 Vorys Sater Flexner
Boies Schiller 16
171 64
161
Cooley
LeClairRyan 17
141 17
135 Cooley
Cadwalader 17
171 17
161
Lewis
MooreRoca
& VanRothgerber
Allen Christie 18
142 9
113 Lewis Roca Rothgerber
Cahill Gordon & Reindel Christie 18
171 9
161
Baker McKenzie
Venable 19
143 1
161 Baker
GordonMcKenzie
Rees Scully Mansukhani 19
171 1
161
Nelson
HinshawMullins Riley
& Culbertson 20
144 53
107 Nelson
WombleMullins
CarlyleRiley 20
171 53
82
Lewis Brisbois
145 78
114 Lewis Brisbois
171 78
161
Bond,
Kobre Schoeneck
& Kim & King 22
146 93
109 Bond,
HollandSchoeneck
& Hart & King 22
171 93
161
Buckley
KasowitzSandler 23
147 116
159 Buckley Sandler
171 116
101
Jones Day
Kirkland & Ellis 24
148 13
144 Jones Day
171 13
161
Norton
Morgan,Rose Fulbright
Lewis & Bockius 25
149 8
75 Norton Rose Fulbright
Winstead 25
171 8
48
Shutts & Bowen
Weil, Gotshal & Manges 26
150 86
66 Shutts & Bowen
Clark Hill 26
171 86
137
Polsinelli
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 27
151 38
161 Polsinelli
171 38
161
Winston & Strawn
Husch Blackwell 28
152 161 Winston & Strawn
Irell & Manella 28
171 161
Robins
Gibson,Kaplan
Dunn & Crutcher 29
153 27
2 Robins Kaplan
Curtis Mallet-Prevost 29
171 27
65
Carlton
ThompsonFields Jorden Burt
Coburn 30
154 103
161 Carlton Fields Jorden Burt
Eckert Seamans 30
171 103
Benesch
155 52
161 Benesch
Sherman & Howard 31
171 52
161
Greenberg Traurig
Goodwin Procter 32
156 10
171 10
161
Fenwick & West
Blank Rome 33
157 11
161 Fenwick & West
Miller Canfield Paddock 33
171 11
79
Haynes
Williamsand Boone
& Connolly 34
158 32
171 32
157
Stinson Leonard
Wilson Elser Street
Moskowitz 35
159 81
133 Stinson
GibbonsLeonard Street 35
171 81
90
Lathrop & Gage
Wiley Rein 36
160 69
161 Lathrop & Gage
Lane Powell 36
171 69
104
Adams andand
Chapman Reese
Cutler 37
161 51
161 Adams
Herrick,and Reese
Feinstein 37
171 51
Skadden
Proskauer Rose 38
162 7
134 Skadden 38 7
Miles
Locke&Lord
Stockbridge 39
163 155
161 Miles & Stockbridge 39 155
Steptoe
Ogletree &Deakins
Johnson 40
164 151
161 Steptoe & Johnson 40 151
Schiff
BarnesHardin
& Thornburg 41
165 110
161 Schiff Hardin 41 110
Saul Ewing
Hughes Hubbard & Reed 42
166 149
161 Saul Ewing 42 149
INSTAGRAM
While the use of Instagram by major firms isn’t yet
widespread enough to do a full analysis, 2018 was
a major year for law firms adapting to the platform.
Adoption of Instagram increased 50 percent among
Am Law 200 firms, compared to 2017. What are law
firms actually posting on the image-centric site? And 50% increase
how do you develop a strategy for Instagram? Turns
out that most law firms aren’t using the channel to
2017 2018
promote thought leadership or share case studies.
Instead, they’re considering the network’s major audi-
ence: millennials.
Instagram is increasingly being used by firms to @nortonrosefulbright

attract young talent. From highlighting the employee
experience to showcasing benevolent corporate so- Norton Rose Fulbright takes a slightly different ap-
cial responsibility efforts, here are how eight Am Law proach to Instagram than other law firms on this list.
200 firms are maximizing the power of Instagram: Using the hashtag #lawaroundtheworld, Norton pro-
motes its global reach through incredible photogra-
@dlapiper phy. Rather than promoting their employees directly,
they post photographs taken by their attorneys across
As one of the largest law firms with offices around the
the globe. Instagram is perhaps the most visual
globe, it’s no surprise that DLA Piper has the biggest
social network, and Norton Rose Fulbright’s account
following on Instagram when it comes to law firms.
exemplifies this. From the top of Sacre-Coeur Basilica
While the firm is no doubt a thought leader with
in Paris to a brightly colored rainforest in Costa Rica,
several blogs, you wouldn’t be able to tell from their
beautiful photography successfully engages the law
account on this channel. Nearly all of their posts are
firm’s 1,800-plus followers.
employee-centric, showcasing company events like
pasta-making at Eataly or a baseball game featuring @gt_law
summer associates. With an average of 80 likes per
post, they have a high level of engagement for a law Greenberg Traurig’s Instagram is multifaceted. Green-
firm. DLA Piper’s account is an excellent example of berg focuses on its lawyers and summer associates
promoting a firm’s workplace culture in a way that (even taking advantage of the platform’s popular sto-
attracts new talent. ries feature), but it also showcases their involvement
in industry conferences and the legal community. By
sharing summer associates’ experiences, Greenberg
is able to attract other millennials looking to get their
start at a major law firm.
@paulhastingslaw
According to the 2016 Cone Communications Mil-

lennial Employee Engagement Study, 76 percent
of millennials consider a company’s commitment to
social responsibility (CSR) when deciding where to
work. Instagram for law firms is the perfect channel

to highlight CSR efforts. Paul Hastings does a remarkable job of demonstrating the firm’s involvement with the
community in a way that’s authentic. For example, it has shared photos of summer associates volunteering at a
food bank and an attorney helping tag sharks in the Bahamas. Imagery like this has a positive impact on brand
reputation—especially with socially conscious millennials.
@omelvenymyers
O’Melveny & Myers takes two types of content that millennials love to reach their target audience: video and
corporate social responsibility. With videos like “What do you want to achieve?,” this law firm is able to quickly
engage potential hires with content that expresses why they would want to be an attorney at the firm. On the
CSR front, the firm has even created a custom hashtag, #cOMMitment2cOMMunity, that incorporates the firm’s
commitment to social causes and its OMM brand name.
@friedfrank
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson uses Instagram to highlight employee experiences, giving Instagram
viewers a taste of the firm’s corporate culture and values. By posting photos from activities like corporate holi-
day events and charity involvement, Fried Frank shows what it’s like to work there. The firm also uses Instagram
best practices to increase engagement, such as adding relevant hashtags and mentioning appropriate ac-
counts.
@proskauer_rose
Proskauer Rose’s Instagram feed is a strong mix of aesthetically pleasing photography and purposeful corpo-
rate highlights. Like many of the other accounts, there’s a focus on corporate culture, showcasing events, caus-
es, and summer associates. However, Proskauer keeps it visually interesting and millennial-friendly by adding in
images of city skylines, animated holiday videos, and snowy street scenes. This is effective for Instagram, where
original photography reigns.
@fishrichardson
This law firm uses Instagram in a similar way to Twitter or LinkedIn. While Fish Richardson includes some photos
documenting causes that the firm supports, as well as firm events, there are also branded images promoting
upcoming events and firm announcements. The firm also has a second Instagram handle, @fishlegalrecruiting,
which focuses on summer associates and encourages others to join the Fish Richardson team.

Looking Back and Looking Forward
In 2017 we found that law firms were not taking full percent expect their budgets to stay the same. No
advantage of the opportunities that digital marketing firms said that their budget will decrease. Yet, at the
provides. This year, we definitely saw improvements same time, we discovered that firms only dedicate a
in content, particularly in client-focused resources and small portion of their overall marketing budgets to
interactive media. But law firms are still neglecting digital marketing efforts; 45 percent of law firms allo-
certain best practices that would maximize the impact cate only 10 percent or less of their marketing budg-
of their social media and thought leadership efforts. ets to digital marketing.* This is confounding when
you consider how important most firms reported
Last year, we also predicted that we would see more digital marketing to be in their business development
firms aggressively encouraging active involvement efforts. In 2019, there will be a lot of room for im-
from partners, associates, and staff attorneys in dig- provement. We expect to see more law firms adopt-
ital marketing. While 70 percent of firms do provide ing a digitally focused marketing strategy in which a
some sort of marketing training, only 44 percent much higher percentage of their overall budgets will
provide training to lawyers of any rank, and only 28 be allocated to digital.
percent provide training to partners.* This, of course,
is problematic. Lawyers have direct contact with
clients and when they aren’t involved in the marketing
process, marketers aren’t able to gain their knowl-
edge about client needs. And when partners don’t
understand the value of digital marketing, they’re
53%
less likely to invest in it—diminishing the power of a Increases
law firm’s marketing department. Breaking silos and
47%
opening up marketing discussions firmwide is the No change
only way that marketers can fully take advantage of
lawyers’ knowledge and gain partners’ trust. Decreases 0%
In terms of budget, 53 percent of law firms expect

their marketing budgets to increase in 2019, and 47

So, specifically, how will law firms utilize their growing
marketing budgets in 2019? Automation. Though auto-
mation has been a digital marketing buzzword for years,
law firms have been slow adopters. From email automa-
tion, CRM automation, chat bots, and more, law firms
have the ability to minimize the effort it takes to execute
marketing campaigns while maximizing ROI. By spend-
ing less time on tedious tasks like segmenting contact
lists or scheduling follow-up emails, marketers in 2019
will be able to spend more time on strategy and innova-
tion. Law firms spent a lot of time in 2018 discussing and
planning for innovation that would lead to more client
satisfaction. We predict that 2019 will be the year that
we see those discussions and plans becoming a reality.
Methodology
The Social Law Firm Index ranks are based upon a proprietary methodology developed to assess the effec-
tiveness of a firm’s use of digital marketing and social media. We refined our algorithm once again for this
year’s review in order to capture the idea of quality over quantity and focus on client-centricity. In addition to
measuring prowess with reach and engagement, we measure SEO, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook, and we
assess thought leadership content on a firm’s website. The thought leadership component allows us to eval-
uate a firm’s ability to consistently present, communicate, and broadcast its expertise across various online
media channels.
Our ranking for each category is from 1 to 198, excluding two firms that recently merged with others. The
ranking is based upon dozens of unique measures per law firm social media property, aggregated in combi-
nation with performance indicators drawn from other digital real estate, including the firm’s corporate website
and practice-area microsites. We captured all digital activities across all these platforms for each Am Law 200
firm from April 1 to August 30, 2018. For each medium, we applied measures of reach, engagement, and con-
version, and we also scored for the application, or absence, of key best practice indicators.
Research in this year’s Social Law Firm Index was complemented by responses collected through Good2bSo-
cial and the Legal Marketing Association’s 2018 Digital Marketing Survey. Good2bSocial and LMA conducted
this survey in September 2018 to discover trends and best practices among law firms regarding their use of
social media and other digital marketing strategies. Data cited in this report followed by an (*) was collected
through this survey.
Note: For entities not active on social media, certain platforms like Facebook will automatically generate a place-card page on behalf of
the firm. As these pages are not owned by or monitored by the firms, they are excluded from consideration in this study.
Note: In cases where firms received the same score, a secondary ranking based on Am Law 200 rank was applied.

About the Authors
Guy Alvarez Kevin Vermeulen

Founder and CEO Chief Operating Officer
Good2bSocial Good2bSocial
Guy Alvarez is the founder and Chief Engagement Kevin Vermeulen is partner and Chief Operating Of-
Officer of Good2bSocial. Guy, a former practicing ficer for Good2bSocial. He has over 30 years of mar-
attorney, is one of the top digital marketing consult- keting and advertising experience, including 22 years
ants in the legal industry. Guy’s experience includes working in various senior management roles, including
leading senior digital marketing roles at KPMG, ALM, Chief Revenue Officer and Chief Marketing Officer for
and The Practising Law Institute. With a background in ALM Media, a leading legal publisher, helping law-
technology and marketing, Guy emerged as an early yers, law firms, consultants, and vendors grow their
adopter and advocate of social media. Guy went on to business. During Kevin’s tenure at ALM, he worked
cultivate his social media expertise as a consultant for with professional services companies in the financial,
a broad range of clients, including consumer goods digital, real estate, and legal industries.
specialists, such as Pernod Ricard, as well as legal
industry leaders, such as Lexis-Nexis and LMA. Over the course of his career, Kevin has played a key
role in the design and development of dozens of web-
Guy has advised Fortune 100 companies and Am sites, digital revenue streams, publishing products,
Law 100 law firms on all aspects of digital marketing, webinars, and conferences, as well as strategic part-
including social media training, search engine optimi- nerships globally. Kevin is generally recognized as an
zation, content marketing, measurement and analysis, expert and thought leader in marketing strategy and
and the development of thought leadership platforms implementation in the legal industry and was honored
and microsites. by B2B Media Business as “Innovator Of The Year.”
Kayla Johnson
Marketing Manager
Good2bSocial
Kayla Johnson is the Marketing Manager at Good2bSocial. She began as a mar-

keting intern for the team, responsible for writing blog posts for the Good2bSo-
cial blog and special projects like the research behind the 2017 and 2018 Social
Law Firm Index.
Kayla graduated from the Fashion Institute of Technology with a degree in Inter-
national Trade & Marketing and minors in English and French.

Good2bSocial is the leading digital marketing agency for law firms, lawyers, and
companies in the legal industry. Our team is made up of experts in business de-
velopment, marketing, advertising, social media, consulting, events and confer-
ences, data mining and knowledge management.
We offer a full suite of digital marketing services including Social Media, Pay-
Per-Click, SEO, Content Marketing, marketing automation, video and podcast
production.
We help our clients understand and leverage the power of digital marketing and
social media to power and transform their marketing and business development
strategies while delivering measurable results.

TheSocialLawFirmIndex 2018 UPDATED

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

TheSocialLawFirmIndex 2018 UPDATED

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

By Guy Alvarez, Kevin Vermeulen,

and Kayla Johnson

The Social Law

Good2bSocial’s annual study of digital marketing adoption,

Executive Summary 3 Feature Profile: White & Case 28

Why The Social Law Firm Index? 7 LinkedIn Index 29

Our Findings 8 Feature Profile: Shumaker,

Overall Social Index 14 Instagram: Top 8 Law Firm Profiles 36

Thought Leadership Index 17 Looking Back, Looking Forward 38

Feature Profile: K&L Gates 20 Methodology 39

SEO Index 21 About the Authors 40

Feature Profile: Baker McKenzie 24

1 | Social Law Firm Index 2018 Good2bSocial

The Social Law

Since conducting our original study in 2013, we have

Although more firms are competing on social media,

THE SOCIAL LAW FIRM INDEX | 2018 TOP FIVE OVERALL

Norton Rose DLA Baker White

2017 Rank 2018 Rank

3 | Social Law Firm Index 2018 Good2bSocial

This year’s top five Social Law Firms achieved out-

Norton Rose Proskauer DLA K&L

2017 Rank 2018 Rank

4 | Social Law Firm Index 2018 Good2bSocial

K&L Baker Norton Rose Greenberg

2017 Rank 2018 Rank

Certainly, not everyone is rising in the 8 5 6 1 127

marketplace, firms will need to inno-

5 | Social Law Firm Index 2018 Good2bSocial

THE SOCIAL LAW FIRM INDEX | 2018 TOP FIVE, LINKEDIN

White Baker DLA Norton Rose

2017 Rank 2018 Rank

THE SOCIAL LAW FIRM INDEX | 2018 TOP FIVE, FACEBOOK

Nixon Shumaker, Loop & White &

2017 Rank 2018 Rank

6 | Social Law Firm Index 2018 Good2bSocial

The state of digital marketing and social me-

7 | Social Law Firm Index 2018 Good2bSocial

VIDEO TAKES OVER

INTERACTIVE CONTENT IS KEY

8 | Social Law Firm Index 2018 Good2bSocial

THINKING LIKE A CLIENT

Use surveys and polls to inform

QUALITY OVER QUANTITY

9 | Social Law Firm Index 2018 Good2bSocial

SHIFTING PRIORITIES, SHIFTING CHANNELS

10 | Social Law Firm Index 2018 Good2bSocial

Firms using paid social Tip: Paid Social

If you’re curious about paid social, but don’t want to make a

Rank Change Rank Rank

CHARACTERISTICS OF WORST PERFORMERS

11 | Social Law Firm Index 2018 Good2bSocial

MISSED ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Norton Rose Fulbright

The firm runs a number of campaigns throughout the

These campaigns have run for decades. Each one is

When it comes to attorney buy-in, Norton Rose

13 | Social Law Firm Index 2018 Good2bSocial

Rank Rank Bradley Procter

Rank Rank K&L Gates

“The legal industry is very competitive; authoring

At K&L Gates, SEO strategy is one and the same with

Associate director of marketing services Eileen Kin-

The firm understands the benefit of utilizing social