I wasn't going to post at all about The American Lawyer's second annual 20-firm long "A List," but I've had a change of heart, if only because it does create a bit of a stir.

My resistance to giving it even a smidgin more publicity stems directly from my reaction—dyspeptic, I'll admit—to the selection criteria, which are at once utterly subjective and snarkily self-congratulatory:  "We take seriously the work and stated values of our audience...we sought a list of core professional values-values that lawyers proclaim as their own."  Spare me.  For the record, the criteria are:

• revenue per lawyer, a relatively hard-to-fudge metric;
• "pro bono," a complete black box whose methodology is not explained;
• associate satisfaction, based on a survey given to 3rd and 4th-years, also a complete black box; and
• "diversity," the third black box.

Revenue and pro bono are given double weighting, the firms are awarded 1 to 200 points on each metric (from last to first), and the four are summed.  Firms that do not "participate" in the pro bono, associate, or diversity bake-offs receives zero's for that category (a score of 100 by fiat would seem to be more fair, but I told you I don't like their premises to begin with).

So what does this prove?  To me, merely that the opportunities for gaming the tournament are especially rich.  But to our good editors, it's definitive:  They have measured "firms as firms" and identified "the true leaders," "the profession's elite."  And for the losers, there's always next year:  "we mean this to be a challenge."  Caveat lector.