21. Fenwick & West, Mountain View, California

With the largest jump in pro bono score among the A-List and runner-up firms and a near-perfect diversity score, Fenwick leaped 12 spots from 33rd last year. Still, its pro bono score has room to improve (69.0), along with its scores in the associate satisfaction (65.5) and female equity partnership categories (71.5).

22. Morrison & Foerster, National

Morrison & Foerster dropped five places this year, falling off The A-List it usually calls home. A subpar female equity partner score (42.0) and slight decreases in its revenue per lawyer and pro bono scores outweighed an 11.5-point increase in its associate satisfaction score. The firm did best in pro bono (91.0) and diversity (95.5).

Related Items:
• The 2017 A-List
• Chart: The A-List Top 20
• Chart: Firms Ranked by the Percentage of Female Equity Partners in the Am Law 200
• Chart: The A-List Runners Up

23. Jenner & Block, Chicago

Jenner’s dedication to pro bono earned it the highest score possible for that metric (100.0), but its scores in revenue per lawyer (69.5), associate satisfaction (70.5), diversity (57.0) and female equity partners (74.5) were closer to the middle of the pack.

24. Sullivan & Cromwell (TIE), New York

Sullivan & Cromwell’s strongest suit remains its chart-topping RPL score of 99.5; it will need gains in its pro bono (68.0), diversity (73.0), associate satisfaction (63.5) or women in equity partnership (66.0) scores to reach The A-List.

24. Willkie Farr & Gallagher (TIE), New York

A 2-point improvement in its pro bono score (73.5) wasn’t enough to keep Willkie from dropping five spots and out of The A-List. The firm saw declining scores in RPL, associate satisfaction, and diversity, while its female equity partner score was mediocre at 57.0.

26. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (TIE), International

Cleary Gottlieb tumbled 12 places in the rankings, falling out of The A-List, in large part because of a 24-point plunge in its associate satisfaction score (57.5). A disappointing female equity partners score (54.5) also contributed to the firm’s descent.

26. Cooley (TIE), Palo Alto, California

Cooley rose 10 spots on the rankings. The largest improvement came from the firm’s associate satisfaction score, which jumped 10.5 points to 84.5. Aside from its pro bono score (62.0), Cooley’s scores were solid but not exceptional, each falling between 78 and 85 points.

28. Proskauer Rose, New York

Proskauer climbed 13 places with the help of a 31-point increase in its diversity score (now 67.5). A 15.5-point increase in its associate satisfaction score and a 4.5-point increase in its pro bono score added to the firm’s rise.

29. Weil, Gotshal & Manges, National

Weil follows Proskauer Rose by just 0.2 points to place 29th. The firm fell 6 places in the overall rankings due to a low female equity partners score and a 7.5-point drop in pro bono score.

30. Crowell & Moring, Washington, D.C.

Aside from association satisfaction, Crowell & Moring saw across-the-board score increases that moved it from 48th place to 30th in the rankings. In particular, a 12-point increase in its RPL score (now 74.0) greatly contributed to its improved showing.

31. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, National

Despite small score decreases in three categories, Morgan Lewis surged ahead 12 places in the overall rankings to become a runner-up, primarily because of its high female equity partners score (91.0) and an increase in its RPL score (now 77.0).

32. Davis Polk & Wardwell, New York

Davis Polk placed one spot lower than last year, its ranking pulled down by a 7.5-point drop in its associate satisfaction score and a middling female equity partner score of 58 points.

33. Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, D.C.

Steptoe had the largest increase in the A-List rankings this year, climbing 36 places. (It helped that the firm participated in the Midlevel Associates survey this time, as it did not the year previously.) Steptoe also increased its diversity score by 12 points and did well in the female equity partners category (78.0).

34. Fish & Richardson, National

An 8-point increase in its pro bono score (65.0) and a 7-point increase in its associate satisfaction score (79.5) helped Fish & Richardson move up one place in the overall rankings.

35. Fragomen, Del Ray, Bernsen & Loewy, International

Fragomen had a perfect score of 100 in female equity partners and a near perfect score of 99.5 in diversity, which propelled it 27 spots in the A-List rankings. Because the firm did not participate in our Midlevel Associates survey, though, it remains among the lower-ranked runners-up.

36. Hogan Lovells, Verein

Even with the lowest RPL score (48.5) of any A-List or runner-up firm, Hogan Lovells managed to climb from 52nd to 36th place, thanks in part to the firm’s impressive female equity partner score (89.5).

37. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, Washington, D.C.

From 44th place last year to 37th in 2017, Finnegan is on its way up. Though the firm’s pro bono score of 45.5 is the lowest of any A-List or runner-up firm, the rest of its scores—all between 81 and 91 points—are on par with higher-ranked firms.

38. White & Case (TIE), International

White & Case dropped ten places in the overall rankings to tie for 38th. Though the firm had a perfect score for diversity (100.0), its female equity partners score (26.5) was much lower
than average.

38. Winston & Strawn (TIE), National

Winston & Strawn had the lowest diversity score (54.0) and the lowest female equity partner score (18.0) among A-List or runner-up firms. Offsetting those weaknesses were strong scores in associate satisfaction (91.0) and pro bono (91.5).

40. Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York

Cravath improved one place to slide into the last spot among runners-up. Its RPL score (97.5) far outpaced its scores in the other categories, which ranged from 56.0 to 69.0. The firm’s diversity score improved while associate satisfaction and pro bono declined.

Correction, 7/1/17, 6:00 p.m. EDT: An earlier version of this article incorrectly reported that Sullivan & Cromwell did not participate in our Midlevel Associate survey in 2015; in fact, it was in 2014 that the firm did not participate. This fourth paragraph of this article has been revised to correct this error.