Learn more from this report: The 20 Practice Areas Growing the Fastest in 2025-2026 (and What Firms Are Hiring in Them)

The report identifies several practice areas leading growth, reflecting where law firms are investing their resources to meet rising client needs.

Fastest-Growing Legal Practice Areas Driving Hiring and Innovation

• Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning Law stands out as the fastest-growing field, propelled by rapid innovation in AI technologies and complex regulatory challenges. Leading firms like Wilson Sonsini, Cooley LLP, and Morrison & Foerster are aggressively recruiting attorneys with expertise in this dynamic area.
  
• Data Privacy & Cybersecurity remains a critical growth driver as companies face expanding global privacy regulations and increasing cyber threats. Firms such as Orrick, Hogan Lovells, and Perkins Coie are scaling up to meet demand.
  
• Environmental, Social & Governance (ESG) Law is rapidly becoming a strategic priority for clients, with law firms like Latham & Watkins, Paul Weiss, and Kirkland & Ellis expanding their ESG teams to advise on sustainability, climate risk, and corporate governance.
  
• The Renewable Energy sector continues to grow as governments and businesses push toward clean energy solutions, attracting law firms including Orrick, Norton Rose Fulbright, and Akin Gump to build out their practices.
  
• Healthcare & Telemedicine Law is experiencing a surge due to increased adoption of digital health technologies and changing regulations, with firms such as McDermott Will & Emery and Foley & Lardner actively hiring.
  
• Digital Assets & Blockchain Law remains an exciting frontier as regulators clarify frameworks and blockchain technology matures. Firms like Cooley LLP, Fenwick & West, and Skadden are at the forefront of this expansion.
  
• Other notable fast-growing practice areas include Climate Change & Environmental Law, Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A), Trade & International Law, and Restructuring & Insolvency, among others.

What’s Driving Growth?

The accelerating pace of technological change and regulatory complexity is reshaping the demand for legal expertise. Areas at the intersection of law and technology, especially AI, cybersecurity, and digital assets, are seeing the fastest expansion. Similarly, regulatory pressures around ESG and climate change are forcing companies to seek specialized legal guidance.

Energy transition is a major force, fueling demand for attorneys in renewables and environmental law. Meanwhile, the healthcare sector’s digital transformation is increasing the need for lawyers familiar with telemedicine and health data compliance.

Finally, economic and geopolitical uncertainty is boosting practices related to international trade, restructuring, and compliance, making these critical to law firm growth strategies.

Learn more from this report: The 20 Practice Areas Growing the Fastest in 2025-2026 (and What Firms Are Hiring in Them)

The post The Future of Law: 20 Fast-Growing Practice Areas first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has ushered in a fresh surge of investment across the legal technology sector, as venture capital firms and corporate investors bet big on tools that promise to revolutionize how lawyers work. From in-house departments to major law firms, the legal industry is now embracing AI-powered platforms designed to automate routine work, streamline compliance, and enhance decision-making.

In the past several months alone, funding announcements for legal tech startups have surpassed $750 million, signaling that AI is no longer a futuristic concept—it’s fast becoming a core operational pillar for legal professionals worldwide.

A New Class of Legal Tech Startups Emerges

At the forefront of this investment wave is GC AI, a San Francisco-based startup developing generative AI systems for corporate legal teams. The company recently closed a $60 million Series B funding round, led by Scale Venture Partners and Northzone, pushing its total valuation to roughly $555 million.

GC AI’s co-founder and CEO, Cecilia Ziniti, describes the company’s mission as empowering legal departments to do more with less. “We’re building tools that allow in-house lawyers to focus on strategy instead of paperwork,” she said. The startup’s AI tools automate drafting, research, and contract analysis—functions that traditionally consume hours of lawyer time.

Notably, GC AI already counts major companies like News Corp, Nextdoor, Skims, and Zscaler among its clients. News Corp also participated in the investment round, signaling strong confidence in the startup’s ability to shape the next generation of legal work. According to Ziniti, the company plans to use the new capital to expand its engineering team, deepen product development, and reach organizations that currently lack in-house legal departments.

Big Investors Bet on Legal AI’s Potential

The booming investment activity surrounding GC AI reflects a broader market trend: investors are zeroing in on legal technology as a promising sub-sector of the AI revolution.

In October, Vancouver-based Clio secured a staggering $500 million at a $5 billion valuation, underscoring its ambitions to become a dominant “AI-first company.” Clio also finalized its $1 billion acquisition of vLex, a global legal research and intelligence platform, giving it an even stronger foothold in the growing intersection between AI and law.

Across the Atlantic, Swedish startup Legora raised $150 million at a $1.8 billion valuation, while Zurich-based DeepJudge brought in $41.2 million to push its valuation to approximately $300 million. Both companies focus on AI models designed to enhance knowledge management and document understanding within law firms.

Other rising players include EvenUp, which raised $150 million at a $2 billion valuation, and Eve, which secured $130 million at a $1 billion valuation. Together, these deals highlight a striking reality: investors are pouring unprecedented sums into technology platforms that can help legal professionals increase accuracy and productivity while reducing reliance on costly external counsel.

The Shift from Traditional Law Practice to AI-Powered Operations

Historically, the legal industry has been slow to adopt new technology compared to other professional services. But the rise of generative AI, led by advancements in natural language processing and machine learning, has created an inflection point.

Today’s legal AI systems are capable of performing tasks that once required extensive human effort—such as summarizing complex documents, identifying key legal precedents, and even drafting first-pass versions of contracts or pleadings. Unlike earlier “automation tools,” modern AI learns continuously from data, allowing it to improve over time and adapt to different practice areas.

For law firms, this evolution represents both an opportunity and a challenge. Firms that integrate AI early can achieve significant efficiency gains and offer clients faster, more cost-effective service. On the other hand, firms that resist the shift may risk losing competitive ground as corporate clients demand greater value and technological sophistication from their legal providers.

AI Investment Accelerates Despite Uncertainty

While investors are bullish, questions remain about regulation, data privacy, and the ethical use of AI in law. Many jurisdictions are still developing guidelines for how generative AI can be used responsibly in legal contexts, especially regarding confidentiality and bias.

Nevertheless, capital continues to flow. According to industry analysts, venture funding for legal tech has nearly doubled since 2023, with a majority of new entrants focused on AI-driven tools. “Legal tech is no longer niche—it’s becoming mainstream,” said one analyst. “The return potential is high, and the efficiency gains are undeniable.”

Experts predict that within five years, AI-driven systems will handle much of the repetitive work currently assigned to junior lawyers and paralegals, freeing up legal teams to focus on advisory, compliance, and strategic functions.

A Changing Landscape for Lawyers

For legal professionals, the implications are profound. As AI becomes more integrated into daily workflows, lawyers will need to develop new skills—not just in legal reasoning, but in data interpretation, technology management, and AI oversight.

Corporate legal departments, in particular, stand to gain. With tools like GC AI and Clio’s AI-powered platforms, in-house teams can process high volumes of contracts, manage regulatory obligations, and track legal spend with unprecedented speed and precision.

Conclusion

The legal industry is on the cusp of a transformative shift, driven by the power and promise of AI. With hundreds of millions of dollars in fresh investment, the next generation of legal technology is poised to redefine how legal work gets done—making it faster, smarter, and more accessible.

As venture capital continues to pour into this sector, one thing is clear: the AI revolution has firmly arrived in the legal world, and those who embrace it will be the ones shaping its future.

Stay ahead of the curve—discover the latest opportunities in legal technology, career trends, and law firm innovation at LawCrossing.com.

The post AI Boom Ignites New Wave of Investment in Legal Tech first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

A growing number of tax attorneys and law firms are renewing their call for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the U.S. Department of the Treasury to withdraw a controversial revenue ruling that reshapes how the government scrutinizes partnership transactions. The ruling, first issued in April 2025, has stirred significant debate within the legal and financial communities for its potential to create broad uncertainty and increase audit risks for complex partnership structures.

The Background: A Shift in Partnership Oversight

Partnerships have long been a favored structure for large law firms, private equity funds, and investment entities due to their flexibility and tax advantages. Under current U.S. tax law, partnerships are considered “pass-through” entities—meaning income, losses, and deductions flow directly to partners rather than being taxed at the entity level.

However, the rapid growth of partnership entities in recent years—particularly among investment and real estate groups—has prompted increased scrutiny from federal regulators. Policymakers have raised concerns that some partnerships use intricate structures to minimize tax obligations in ways that stretch or skirt the intent of the law.

To address these perceived loopholes, the IRS released Revenue Ruling 2025-10 earlier this year, expanding its authority to apply the economic substance doctrine to partnership arrangements. The doctrine allows the IRS to disregard a transaction for tax purposes if it lacks genuine economic purpose beyond generating tax benefits.

What the IRS Guidance Changes

Before this ruling, the economic substance doctrine typically applied to individual transactions. The new interpretation empowers the IRS to apply the doctrine across entire partnership structures. In practice, this means the IRS can challenge an entire set of transactions if it determines the structure produces tax benefits without meaningful economic change to the taxpayer’s position.

For example, under the new guidance, if a partnership restructured ownership interests or shifted liabilities primarily to achieve tax savings, the IRS could disallow those benefits—potentially imposing penalties and interest.

While the Treasury Department framed the ruling as a necessary measure to combat aggressive tax avoidance, critics argue it gives the IRS excessive leeway to question legitimate business arrangements. Many practitioners fear the new guidance could lead to inconsistent enforcement, as the line between a “tax-motivated” and a “commercially reasonable” transaction is often nuanced.

Legal Community Pushes Back

Lawyers, tax advisors, and trade associations have voiced mounting concern over what they view as an overly broad and ambiguous directive. The American Bar Association’s Section of Taxation, along with several prominent law firms, has submitted formal comments urging the Treasury to rescind or revise the ruling.

According to their arguments, the current guidance “creates significant uncertainty” for taxpayers and undermines predictability in tax compliance. Without clearer boundaries, partnerships could face unexpected audit exposure, potentially deterring legitimate business activity.

Policy Context: A Narrower Regulatory Landscape

The renewed push for reversal comes as the Biden administration has scaled back other proposed partnership tax reforms. Earlier initiatives to strengthen enforcement through more comprehensive regulations were quietly abandoned following industry opposition and administrative pushback.

That leaves the April revenue ruling as one of the few active measures targeting partnership arrangements. As such, it has become a focal point for debate—viewed by some as a necessary anti-abuse tool, and by others as an overreach that risks destabilizing legitimate structures.

For the IRS, partnership taxation remains a critical frontier in its broader campaign to close what it calls the “tax gap”—the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid. The agency estimates that complex partnerships contribute disproportionately to this shortfall, partly due to their opaque ownership layers and intricate transaction patterns.

The Stakes for Law Firms and Investors

For law firms organized as partnerships, the ruling introduces a layer of uncertainty in structuring compensation, profit distribution, and capital contributions. Tax advisors warn that even routine internal adjustments could come under heightened scrutiny.

The same is true for private equity funds and hedge funds, which often rely on partnership structures to manage investments and distribute returns. Ambiguity in IRS guidance could increase administrative costs and deter investors seeking predictability.

“Partnerships thrive on flexibility,” noted one managing partner at a major firm. “When the government starts questioning whether ordinary restructuring has enough ‘economic substance,’ it threatens that flexibility and complicates compliance planning.”

Calls for Clarity or Repeal

Many in the legal community are now urging the Treasury and IRS to either revoke the ruling entirely or issue clarifying guidance that narrows its scope. They argue that regulatory predictability is essential to maintaining taxpayer confidence and supporting business growth.

Several trade organizations have proposed that the IRS replace the current ruling with a more tailored rulemaking process—one that includes clear definitions, examples, and public comment periods. Such a move could preserve the IRS’s enforcement authority while providing taxpayers with the clarity they need to comply confidently.

Until such action is taken, practitioners expect heightened caution from law firms, accounting practices, and investment partnerships as they navigate the evolving landscape. Many anticipate more conservative structuring, increased documentation of business purposes, and potentially, more legal challenges to IRS audits.

Conclusion

The renewed opposition to the IRS’s partnership guidance underscores a broader tension in U.S. tax policy—balancing the need to curb abusive practices with the imperative to maintain fairness and certainty for legitimate businesses. As the legal and financial sectors await further word from the Treasury, the debate over the economic substance doctrine’s reach continues to define the future of partnership taxation.

Stay informed on major regulatory and tax law developments that impact the legal profession. Visit LawCrossing.com to explore top law firm opportunities, in-depth legal career insights, and expert resources to help you stay ahead in a changing legal landscape.

The post Lawyers Renew Push to Overturn Controversial IRS Partnership Guidance first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Learn more from this guide: Attorney Placement vs. Attorney Recruiting

Attorney Recruiting: Filling Positions, Not Building Careers

Traditional attorney recruiting operates from a position-first perspective. In this model, a law firm has a specific vacancy to fill — and recruiters seek out candidates to match that role. The process is typically limited to active job openings, meaning opportunities are constrained by what firms publicly advertise.

Recruiters working under this framework often submit multiple candidates for the same position, leading to greater competition and less control for the attorney. The firm dictates the pace, terms, and scope of the hiring process. For many attorneys, this can translate to fewer interview opportunities and reduced leverage when it comes to negotiating offers.

While recruiting can be effective for candidates urgently seeking new employment, it often lacks the strategic focus needed to align a move with an attorney’s long-term career goals.

Attorney Placement: A Candidate-First Strategy

Attorney placement, on the other hand, is a candidate-driven approach. This model begins with the attorney — their background, aspirations, and ideal work environment — rather than a job posting. Legal placement professionals, such as those at BCG Attorney Search, work proactively to introduce candidates to firms that may not have publicly listed openings but could be open to the right fit.

This strategy gives attorneys access to a broader range of opportunities, including hidden or unadvertised positions. By crafting a personalized outreach campaign, placement consultants create multiple parallel interview processes, giving attorneys the ability to choose between offers rather than compete for a single position.

In short, placement professionals serve as career advocates — presenting their candidates not just as applicants, but as valuable assets to firms seeking top legal talent.

Why the Difference Matters

According to BCG Attorney Search, the placement model often delivers superior outcomes because it maximizes visibility, timing, and leverage. Candidates are introduced to firms before openings even appear publicly, expanding their access to the legal market.

Placement also transforms the power dynamic: attorneys gain control over their timelines, negotiations, and career direction. Instead of passively waiting for job postings, they actively shape their professional trajectory.

The Takeaway

Whether you are a recent law graduate exploring your first move or a senior associate seeking a long-term fit, understanding the difference between attorney recruiting and attorney placement can profoundly impact your career growth.

BCG Attorney Search emphasizes that placement is not just about finding a job — it’s about building a career.

For attorneys ready to take a proactive, strategic approach to their job search, exploring the placement model could be the key to unlocking the next great opportunity in your legal journey.

Learn more from this guide: Attorney Placement vs. Attorney Recruiting

The post Attorney Placement vs. Attorney Recruiting: Understanding the Key Difference in Legal Hiring first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

A coalition of leading U.S. law firms has joined forces with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to launch a nationwide legal initiative aimed at countering the growing surge of antisemitism in the United States. The new Legal Action Network (LAN), officially announced on October 29, 2025, represents one of the largest organized legal responses to antisemitic incidents to date.

The project—co-led by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and the ADL—will provide free legal support to individuals, students, and organizations targeted by antisemitic harassment or discrimination. The network will draw on the collective strength of about 40 law firms and nearly 39,000 attorneys across 35 states. Participants will assist the ADL in representing victims, pursuing civil litigation, and developing legal strategies to address hate-related conduct.

A Proactive Legal Approach Against Hate

ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt emphasized that the initiative marks a new phase in the fight against antisemitism, moving from reactive to proactive engagement. “This is a way for us to go from defense to offense,” Greenblatt said, underscoring the need for immediate, coordinated legal action as antisemitic activity continues to rise nationwide.

The ADL, long recognized for its advocacy and monitoring of antisemitic incidents, has reported alarming statistics in recent years. Following the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and the subsequent Israeli military operations in Gaza, antisemitic activity in the United States has increased sharply. ADL data showed 8,873 antisemitic incidents in 2023, a 140% increase from 2022—the highest total since the organization began tracking such data in 1979. The number grew another 5% in 2024, reaching 9,354 incidents across the country.

Building on Earlier Success

The Legal Action Network builds upon an earlier partnership between Gibson Dunn and the ADL that launched the Campus Antisemitism Legal Line (CALL) in 2023. The hotline was designed to assist college students, faculty, and staff who experienced antisemitic discrimination or harassment on U.S. campuses. CALL has already received more than 1,000 complaints from over 260 colleges and universities across 39 states.

According to Katie Marquart, Gibson Dunn’s Pro Bono Chair, the demand for legal help through the CALL project quickly revealed a broader national need. “When we launched the campus initiative, we saw the flood of cases coming in—and we knew the problem extended far beyond academia,” Marquart said. “With the new Legal Action Network, we can expand that support to every community in the country.”

A Powerful Coalition of Firms

In addition to Gibson Dunn, several major law firms have joined the network’s steering committee, including:

• Cooley LLP
• Covington & Burling LLP
• Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
• Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP
• Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

These firms will play a central role in coordinating case referrals, overseeing pro bono efforts, and determining which cases will be escalated for litigation or policy advocacy. Each participating firm will also receive training and guidance from the ADL on recognizing antisemitic activity and handling related claims.

The collaboration will allow victims to receive assistance from attorneys with experience in civil rights, education law, workplace discrimination, and hate crime litigation. The ADL will serve as the primary intake point, referring cases to network firms as appropriate or joining as co-counsel in significant matters.

National Legal Industry Steps Up

The Legal Action Network reflects a growing commitment within the legal community to address social justice issues through structured, coordinated pro bono efforts. Notably, at least four of the nine firms that previously pledged hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services under a separate federal initiative are now participants in this network.

Legal industry observers see this as part of a broader trend among top firms to take more active roles in combating bias and hate speech. Many large law firms have expanded their pro bono and diversity initiatives in recent years, tackling issues ranging from voting rights to gender equity—and now, antisemitism.

A Call for Broader Legal Engagement

While the network’s immediate focus is on antisemitic cases, leaders from participating firms hope the framework could serve as a model for addressing other forms of hate-based discrimination. The ADL has already expressed openness to collaborating with other advocacy organizations to replicate the model in future initiatives.

“Legal professionals have a unique power to protect the rights of individuals and set legal precedents that deter hate,” said Marquart. “By uniting law firms and the ADL under one umbrella, we’re amplifying that power.”

The Legal Action Network’s official launch signals an unprecedented level of collaboration between the private legal sector and civil rights advocates. For victims of antisemitism—whether in schools, workplaces, or communities—it represents more than a legal resource; it’s a promise of accountability.

As antisemitism continues to climb across the U.S., this initiative stands as a powerful example of how the legal community can confront hate, uphold justice, and use the law as a tool for protection and progress.

To learn more about legal careers and how attorneys are using their skills to drive social impact, visit LawCrossing.com.

The post Major Law Firms Launch Legal Network to Combat Antisemitism first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Learn more from this report: Remote Work in Law Firms 2025-2026

Evolving Work Models in the Legal Industry

Remote work, once a pandemic-era necessity, has now evolved into a defining feature of law firm culture. The report reveals that 68% of major firms now operate under a four-day office attendance model, while 12% require full five-day office presence, a number steadily decreasing. Only 8% of firms offer full remote or “work-from-anywhere” arrangements, underscoring that while flexibility is valued, full autonomy remains rare.

However, the report exposes a transparency gap—with 73% of firms providing vague or incomplete information about their remote policies. In many cases, attorneys discover that firm culture, client expectations, or partner preferences quietly override official rules. Nearly nine out of ten associates report that unwritten expectations significantly influence day-to-day flexibility.

Firms Leading and Lagging in Remote Adaptation

The study ranks firms based on clarity, consistency, and openness regarding remote work. Leaders like Quinn Emanuel, Husch Blackwell, and Fisher Phillips are recognized for transparent, employee-friendly policies that align with modern work expectations. In contrast, traditional firms such as Sullivan & Cromwell, Cravath, and Wachtell Lipton remain among the most rigid, enforcing strict in-office mandates and limited flexibility.

Key Takeaways for Attorneys and Candidates

BCG’s “Remote Work Playbook” offers valuable strategies for navigating law firm interviews and policy evaluations. Attorneys are encouraged to:

• Decode firm language: Terms like “flexible arrangements” often signal genuine openness, while “mentorship-focused” may imply stricter attendance.
• Ask specific questions: Clarify in-office expectations, technology support, and flexibility for remote collaboration.
• Document agreements: Ensure any remote work arrangement is formalized in writing to avoid future disputes.
• Watch for red flags: Vague answers or policy inconsistencies are common indicators of a restrictive environment.

The Future Outlook: 2025–2026 and Beyond

The report forecasts that the four-day hybrid model will dominate by 2026, potentially adopted by three-quarters of major firms. The focus will shift toward performance-driven flexibility, leveraging technology to measure output rather than presence. Additionally, as Gen Z attorneys rise through the ranks, firms may feel stronger pressure to adapt policies to attract and retain emerging talent.

Final Thoughts

JDJournal encourages legal professionals to explore the full BCG report to better understand the direction of remote work in the legal industry. Whether you’re a managing partner refining firm policy or an associate seeking career flexibility, this data-driven resource provides the insights needed to thrive in the modern legal landscape.

Learn more from this report: Remote Work in Law Firms 2025-2026

The post Remote Work in Law Firms 2025–2026—Key Insights Shaping the Future of Legal Practice first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Read more from here: Attorney Placement vs. Attorney Recruiting

Attorney Recruiting: The Traditional Approach

Traditional attorney recruiting begins with a law firm identifying an open position. Recruiters then look for candidates who meet specific requirements for that role. This approach is position-driven, meaning attorneys must fit into existing openings rather than having opportunities created for them.

While this method connects firms to available talent, it can be limiting. Candidates often compete for a small number of posted jobs and must wait for a firm’s timing to align with their goals. The process typically revolves around resume submissions, application reviews, and firm-controlled interview schedules.

Attorney Placement: A Candidate-Centered Strategy

By contrast, attorney placement shifts the focus entirely to the attorney. Instead of waiting for a job posting, a placement professional—such as those at BCG Attorney Search—markets the attorney’s background, skills, and goals to law firms across the country, including those that may not have publicly listed openings.

This candidate-first approach allows attorneys to explore a much broader segment of the legal market, including confidential or “hidden” opportunities. Placement professionals create a strategic campaign tailored to each attorney, reaching out to targeted firms that align with their long-term career aspirations.

Why Placement Creates Better Outcomes

Placement goes beyond matching qualifications—it’s about building opportunity. Because it generates demand for the candidate, placement often leads to multiple interviews, giving attorneys leverage in negotiations. It also allows for parallel interview processes, creating options and momentum that aren’t possible through traditional recruiting.

Moreover, placement emphasizes career trajectory rather than immediate fit. Placement professionals work to ensure each move advances an attorney’s long-term goals, practice focus, and firm culture preferences.

The Process Behind Effective Attorney Placement

Attorney placement follows a proven series of steps:

1. Evaluating the attorney’s strengths, goals, and marketability.
2. Mapping out firms and practice areas that align with their objectives.
3. Developing professional materials that position the attorney effectively.
4. Conducting confidential outreach to decision-makers at target firms.
5. Managing multiple interviews to create momentum and negotiating power.

Through this process, attorneys experience faster results, more options, and greater control over their careers.

Your Next Career Step

For attorneys ready to elevate their career path, understanding the difference between attorney recruiting and attorney placement is essential. Placement isn’t just about finding a job—it’s about shaping your professional future.

Read more from here: Attorney Placement vs. Attorney Recruiting

The post Attorney Placement vs. Attorney Recruiting — What You Need to Know first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Unlike rankings based on revenue or profits, Vault’s list is grounded in perception and reputation among peers. This year, more than 20,000 associates nationwide participated in the survey, rating law firms other than their own on a prestige scale of 1 to 10. The methodology ensures impartial results and captures how lawyers across the country truly view the reputations of competing firms.

Read more from here: The 100 Most Prestigious U.S. Law Firms

The Top 10 Firms

The 2025 Top 10 Most Prestigious Firms reflect a balance of tradition and modern dominance:

1. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP – A perennial leader, Cravath remains synonymous with prestige and excellence.
2. Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz – Known for its elite M&A and litigation strength, the firm retains its place near the very top.
3. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP – A global giant renowned for corporate and transactional work.
4. Latham & Watkins LLP – One of the largest firms in the world, praised for both breadth and depth of practice.
5. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP – Recognized for financial services, M&A, and cross-border transactions.
6. Kirkland & Ellis LLP – A dominant player in private equity, restructuring, and high-stakes litigation.
7. Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP – A corporate law powerhouse with decades of reputation behind its name.
8. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP – Known equally for its litigation practice and progressive culture.
9. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP – A leader in private equity, capital markets, and Wall Street representation.
10. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP – Distinguished for its litigation and appellate practices, including landmark Supreme Court work.

Why Prestige Matters

Prestige rankings carry weight in a profession where reputation often guides career choices. For law students, they can influence OCI bidding and summer associate offers. For laterals, they provide a barometer of where career growth may be most strategically advantageous. And for clients, firm prestige often signals trust, influence, and long-standing excellence.

While Vault’s ranking does not measure revenue or profitability, its focus on peer perception highlights the importance of culture, reputation, and the respect a firm commands across the industry. In many cases, firms at the top of the list are not only profitable but also offer career paths that shape the future of the profession itself.

Looking Ahead

The Vault 100 list continues to be a reference point for attorneys, law students, and recruiters alike. It not only celebrates the leading firms but also underscores the qualities—such as consistency, excellence, and peer recognition—that define long-term prestige in the legal world.

Visit Vault’s complete The 100 Most Prestigious U.S. Law Firms ranking.

The post Vault Reveals the 2025 “Top 100 Most Prestigious U.S. Law Firms first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Learn more from this report: The Highest-Paying Law Firms in the United States

💼 Associates: The Cravath Scale Sets the Standard

• First-year associates now start at $225,000 in base salary.
• Pay steadily rises, reaching $435,000 by the eighth year.
• Annual bonuses add another $20,000 to $115,000, with special bonuses boosting total senior associate pay to nearly $575,000.

🌟 Top Firms for Associate Pay

• Kirkland & Ellis, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, and Quinn Emanuel top the list with associate compensation around $575,000.
• Skadden Arps and Davis Polk follow at $560,000, while Wachtell, Sullivan & Cromwell, Latham & Watkins, Paul Weiss, and Cleary Gottlieb hover near $550,000.

🏆 Partners: Unmatched Earnings Power

• Kirkland & Ellis leads with an average of $9.25 million in profits per equity partner.
• Wachtell Lipton follows closely at $9.04 million.
• Other powerhouse firms—including Quinn Emanuel, Sullivan & Cromwell, Skadden Arps, Latham, Davis Polk, Cravath, Cleary Gottlieb, and Paul Weiss—report partner earnings between $3.7 million and $5.4 million.

🔑 Why These Firms Stand Out

• Highly selective hiring from top law schools (T14), with preference for law review and federal clerkships.
• Heavy focus on high-stakes practice areas like M&A, private equity, litigation, and global transactions.
• Rigorous billable hour demands matched with market-leading rewards.

Learn more from this report: The Highest-Paying Law Firms in the United States

💡 For aspiring lawyers and seasoned associates alike, these firms represent the pinnacle of both prestige and financial reward in today’s legal market.

The post The Highest-Paying Law Firms in the U.S. Revealed first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Learn more from this report: Associate Lateral Move Timing

🔑 Key Takeaways for Associates

• 2–6 Years Is the Sweet Spot
  The most in-demand candidates are mid-level associates with 3–5 years of experience. At this stage, lawyers have proven skills, billing efficiency, and the flexibility firms seek.
• Less Than a Year? Too Soon
  Leaving a firm within your first year often raises red flags. Hiring managers want to see stability and commitment before considering a candidate.
• Seasonal Market Advantage
  The busiest lateral hiring season runs January through June, after bonuses are paid and firms refresh their budgets. While year-end hiring can also be favorable, summer months typically slow down.
• Wait Too Long, Risk Marketability
  Associates with more than 6–7 years of experience may face challenges moving laterally, as firms often prefer training and molding younger lawyers into partnership tracks.

⚖️ Why It Matters

A lateral move is more than just a change of workplace—it’s a career-defining decision. Choosing the right timing can open doors to better opportunities, higher pay, and stronger promotion prospects, while moving too early or too late can limit options.

Learn more from this report: Associate Lateral Move Timing

The post The Best Time for Associates to Make a Lateral Move first appeared on JDJournal Blog.