Page 6 - Reader Rankings

technology products, to banking and escrow services to dispute resolution, the New York Law Journal Reader Rank-
e
ings displays the firms who came out on top when it comes to providing you with what is essential to compete in this tough legal mark
Recently I had a mated conversation about the Reader Rankings with a long-time partner at a large New York City law firm. When he first 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 fine. The vendors do a wonderful service to the legal community. They really do. “
et.
rather ani
The 2015 New York Law Journal Reader Rankings: Celebrating the Excellence
Clearly you agree with him. Despite incredibly busy schedules and a work load that is enough for probably two people,
of 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 timeittakestofillitout,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 Sixth 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 five years have gone by this quickly. The vendors ranked in this supplement are firms 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 notified 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 tvhernoudgohrsdinire1c0t0e+mcaailtsegaonrdieosn. lYinoeu akdeveeprteisxecmeednitnsgaocruorsesxApLecMta’tsiovnas.t network of websites. Our goal was to make the
voting as inclusive as possible. The ballot consisted of 51 categories encompassing the areas of Technology, Research,
The Reader Rankings are not a scientific survey or an editorial analysis but democracy. This program is run by our sales and marketing teams
Accounting,Insurance,FinancialServices,LitigationSupport,EducationandRecruiting/Staffing. Intotal,over350
here at ALM. The voting was conducted via online ballot. Readers were notified of the ballot through direct emails and online advertise-
firms were listed on the official online ballot and voters were also given the option of writing in any firms not listed -
ments linking to the ballot across ALM’s network of websites. The ballot consisted of 90+ categories encompassing the areas of Technology,
aRlmesoesatr3c7h5,Aficrcmosurnetcineigv,eIdnsvuortaenscveia,Fthineawnrcitael-Sinerovpitcieosn,.LitigationSupport,RealEstate,Education,RecruitingandStaffing.Intotal,over500
firms were listed on the official online ballot and voters were also given the option of writing in any firms not seen listed; approximately 300
Please note that we only allowed legitimate end users (attorneys, paralegals, legal assistants etc.) to vote. We took great
firms 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 disqualified.
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 “stuffing the ballot box.” Any votes cast by non-legal-professionals (or anyone who we could not cviallildyatheewLaaswa Jleoguirtnimal’asteAednPdroudsuerc)tiwonerMe adnisaqgueralSifiuesdan. Ferguson and ALM’s Senior Art Director Francis Kaiven who
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 AgdaPinr,otdhuacntkiosnfoMr sahnarginegr MyoiucrhevloleiceGaruntdmyaonu,rAvLotMes’s. YMoaurkoeptingio&nsCarearteiflvecteadmo,netshpecpiaglleysAthmatyfHolalonwan. IafnydouSadroah Dulat. Their help was
not see your favorite firm there this year, please make sure to vote next year. Based on your tremendous response, the Reader Rankings will only grow and expand in 2012 and beyond.
critical to making this fantastic supplement come together despite tight deadlines and a lot of changes by yours truly.
Again, I thank you for sharing your voice and your votes. Your opinions are reflected on the pages that follow. If you do not see your favorite firm there this year please make sure to vote next year. Based on your tremendous response over the last six years, the Reader Rankings
As always, if you have any thoughts on this program or any other program we run here at the New York Law Journal,
will keep evolving and growing.
please drop me a line. I can be reached at [email protected]. I look forward to hearing from you!
Warm regards,
Warm regards,
ptember 2011 NYLJ RANKINGS
S4 NYLJ RANKINGS September 2015