Page 6 - 2014_Reader_Rankings
P. 6
technology products, to banking and escrow services to dispute resolution, the New York Law Journal Reader Rank-
ings displays the irms who came out on top when it comes to providing you with what is essential to compete in this
tough legal market.
Recently I had a rather animated conversation about the Reader Rankings with a long-time partner at a large New York
City law irm. When he irst saw the survey, he was concerned that we were asking lawyers to vote on other lawyers
and saw a lot of pitfalls in that. After I spent a good amount of time walking him through the exhaustive process we
undertake to execute Reader Rankings and sent him a list of the voting categories, his attitude changed. “No worries,”
he said, “that is ine. The vendors do a wonderful service to the legal community. They really do. “
The 2014 New York Law Journal Reader Rankings: Celebrating Five Years of Excellence
Clearly you agree with him. Despite incredibly busy schedules and a work load that is enough for probably two people,
by Those Who Serve the New York Legal Community
over 4,200 readers cast votes for your favorite vendors in 51 categories. Given the size and scope of the survey and the
timeittakestoillitout,yourresponseagainexceededourexpectationsbyfar. Lawyersandlegalprofessionalsalike
Dear Readers,
rely very heavily on these companies and that is why we have dedicated a special supplement to highlight the successes
Welcome to the Fifth Annual New York Law Journal Reader Rankings, where you, the New York legal community, cast your vote for your
of the best.
favorite vendors. It’s hard to believe ive years have gone by this quickly. The vendors ranked in this supplement are irms that you have told
us are the best of the best. They are the ones who help you with all aspects of life as a lawyer and legal professional.
The Reader Rankings is run by our sales and marketing teams here at ALM. The voting was conducted via online bal-
lot and compiled by the sales and marketing teams of the New York Law Journal. Readers were notiied of the ballot
Despite incredibly busy schedules and a work load that is enough for probably two people, over 8,000 (!) of you cast votes for your favorite
throughdirectemilsandonlineadvertisementsacrossALM’svastnetworkofwebsites. Ourgoalwastomakethe
vendorsin90+categories.Youkeepexcedigouexpectations.
voting as inclusive as possible. The ballot consisted of 51 categories encompassing the areas of Technology, Research,
The Reader Rankings are not a scientiic survey or an editorial analysis but democracy. This program is run by our sales and marketing teams
Accounting,Insurance,FinancialServices,LitigationSupport,EducationandRecruiting/Stafing. Intotal,over350
here at ALM. The voting was conducted via online ballot. Readers were notiied of the ballot through direct emails and online advertise-
irms were listed on the oficial online ballot and voters were also given the option of writing in any irms not listed -
ments linking to the ballot across ALM’s network of websites. The ballot consisted of 90+ categories encompassing the areas of Technology,
almost375irmsreceivedvotesviathewrite-inopton.
Research, Accounting,Insurance, FinancialServices, Litigation Support, Real Estate, Education, Recruiting and Stafing. In total, over
500 irms were listed on the oficial online ballot and voters were also given the option of writing in any irms not seen listed; approximately
Please note that we only allowed legitimate end users (attorneys, paralegals, legal assistants etc.) to vote. We took great
300 irms received votes via the write-in option. Ultimately, our goal was to make the voting as inclusive as possible.
pains to ensure the voting was fair. Any non-attorney, non-legal-professional or non-validated vote was disqualiied.
Please note that we only allowed legitimate end users (attorneys, paralegals, legal assistants etc.) to vote. We took great pains to ensure the
I would like to extend a special thanks to the entire New York Law Journal sales, marketing and design teams – espe-
voting was fair and that no vendors were “stufing the ballot box.” Any votes cast by non-legal-professionals (or anyone who we could not
cillytheLawJournal’sAdProductionManagerSusanFerguson and ALM’s Senior Art Director Francis Kaiven who
validaewasa legitimateenduser)were disqualiied.
really made this fantastic supplement come together despite tight deadlines and a lot of changes made by yours truly.
I would like to extend a special thanks to the entire New York Law Journal sales, marketing and design teams – especially the Law Journal’s
Again,thanksforsharingyourvoiceandyourvotes.Youropinionsarerelectedonthepagesthatfollow.Ifyoudo
dProductionManger SusanFerguson,ALM’sMarketing&Creativteam,especiallySoniAbraham,AmyHanan, Sarah Dulat and
not see your favorite irm there this year, please make sure to vote next year. Based on your tremendous response, the
Saoul Vanderpool. Their help was critical to making this fantastic supplement come together despite tight deadlines and a lot of changes
by yours truly.
Reader Rankings will only grow and expand in 2012 and beyond.
As always, if you have any thoughts on this program or any other program we run here at the New York Law Journal,
Again, I thank you for sharing your voice and your votes. Your opinions are relected on the pages that follow. If you do not see your favorite
irm there this year please make sure to vote next year. Based on your tremendous response over the last ive years, the Reader Rankings
please drop me a line. I can be reached at [email protected]. I look forward to hearing from you!
will keep evolving and growing.
Warm regards,
Warm regards,
NYLJ RANKINGS
ptember 2011 e
S2 NYLJ RANKINGS September 2014
