diversity rankings::Manhattan::out lgbt (from betterlegalprofession.org)
| partners |
|
associates |
|
| rank |
firm |
percent |
M |
F |
|
rank |
firm |
percent |
M |
F |
|
| 1 | Morrison & Foerster | 6.3 | 4 | * | A | 1 | Alston & Bird | 9.4 | 4 | 1 | A |
| 2 | Kirkland & Ellis | 5.6 | 4 | 3 | 2 | Loeb & Loeb | 7.0 | 4 | 0 |
| 3 | Patterson | 5.5 | 3 | 0 | 3 | Cleary Gottlieb | 6.5 | 15 | 7 |
| 4 | Alston & Bird | 5.1 | 2 | 0 | 4 | Debevoise & Plimpton | 6.3 | 21 | 3 |
| 5 | Debevoise & Plimpton | 4.6 | 5 | 0 | 5 | Bingham Mccutchen | 6.2 | 2 | 2 |
| 6 | Cleary Gottlieb | 4.5 | 3 | 1 | 6 | Morrison & Foerster | 5.8 | 4 | 2 |
| 7 | Cravath, Swaine & Moore | 4.3 | 4 | 0 | 7 | Patterson | 5.8 | 4 | 2 |
| 8 | Cahill Gordon & Reindel | 4.2 | 3 | 0 | 8 | Linklaters | 5.2 | 6 | 1 |
| 9 | Fulbright & Jaworski | 3.8 | 2 | 0 | 9 | Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe | 5.1 | 3 | 3 |
| 10 | Linklaters | 3.8 | 2 | 0 | 10 | Wilmerhale | 4.8 | 4 | 1 |
| 11 | Dewey & Leboeuf | 3.7 | 4 | 2 | 11 | Latham & Watkins | 4.7 | 13 | 2 |
| 12 | Latham & Watkins | 3.6 | 3 | 0 | 12 | Ropes & Gray | 4.7 | 6 | 4 |
| 13 | Mcdermott Will & Emery | 3.5 | 2 | 1 | 13 | Fitzpatrick, Cella | 4.7 | 4 | 0 |
| 14 | Wachtell, Lipton | 3.5 | 3 | 0 | 14 | Hughes Hubbard & Reed | 4.5 | 4 | 2 |
| 15 | Akin Gump | 3.2 | 2 | 0 | 15 | Nixon Peabody | 4.4 | 1 | 1 |
| 16 | Sonnenschein Nath | 3.0 | 2 | 1 | B | 16 | Milbank, Tweed | 4.4 | 12 | 1 | B |
| 17 | Herrick, Feinstein | 3.0 | 2 | 0 | 17 | Skadden, Arps | 4.4 | 23 | 5 |
| 18 | Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher | 2.9 | 2 | 0 | 18 | Fried, Frank | 4.3 | 10 | 3 |
| 19 | Willkie Farr & Gallagher | 2.9 | 1 | 2 | 19 | Paul, Weiss | 4.3 | 11 | 5 |
| 20 | Paul, Weiss | 2.9 | 1 | 2 | 20 | Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft | 4.2 | 6 | 4 |
| 21 | Ropes & Gray | 2.8 | 1 | 1 | 21 | Carter Ledyard & Milburn | 4.2 | 1 | 1 |
| 22 | Skadden, Arps | 2.8 | 5 | 1 | 22 | Herrick, Feinstein | 4.2 | 2 | 1 |
| 23 | Chadbourne & Parke | 2.7 | 1 | 1 | 23 | Akin Gump | 4.2 | 5 | 0 |
| 24 | Bryan Cave | 2.7 | 1 | 1 | 24 | Hogan & Hartson | 4.1 | 3 | 0 |
| 25 | Covington & Burling | 2.6 | 1 | 0 | 25 | Goodwin Procter | 4.0 | 1 | 3 |
| 26 | Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe | 2.5 | 2 | 0 | 26 | Clifford Chance Us | 3.7 | 5 | 2 |
| 27 | Wilmerhale | 2.4 | 0 | 1 | 27 | Davis Polk & Wardwell | 3.6 | 16 | 0 |
| 28 | Morgan, Lewis & Bockius | 2.3 | 0 | 2 | 28 | Weil, Gotshal & Manges | 3.6 | 14 | 4 |
| 29 | Schulte Roth & Zabel | 2.3 | 2 | 0 | 29 | Sonnenschein Nath | 3.5 | 2 | 1 |
| 30 | Simpson Thacher | 2.3 | 2 | 1 | 30 | Dewey & Leboeuf | 3.5 | 10 | 4 |
| 31 | Nixon Peabody | 2.2 | 1 | 0 | C | 31 | Proskauer Rose | 3.3 | 4 | 4 | C |
| 32 | O'Melveny & Myers | 2.2 | 1 | 0 | 32 | Holland & Knight | 3.3 | 1 | 1 |
| 33 | Clifford Chance Us | 2.2 | 2 | 0 | 33 | Wachtell, Lipton | 3.1 | 4 | 0 |
| 34 | Shearman & Sterling | 2.2 | 2 | 0 | 34 | Sidley Austin | 3.1 | 6 | 2 |
| 35 | Proskauer Rose | 2.1 | 2 | 1 | 35 | Dla Piper Us | 3.1 | 4 | 0 |
| 36 | White & Case | 2.1 | 2 | 1 | 36 | Cravath, Swaine & Moore | 3.1 | 9 | 2 |
| 37 | Kramer Levin | 2.0 | 2 | 0 | 37 | Kelley Drye & Warren | 3.0 | 3 | 0 |
| 38 | Bingham Mccutchen | 2.0 | 1 | 0 | 38 | O'Melveny & Myers | 2.9 | 4 | 0 |
| 39 | Weil, Gotshal & Manges | 1.9 | 1 | 2 | 39 | Kramer Levin | 2.8 | 6 | 0 |
| 40 | Mayer Brown | 1.8 | 1 | 0 | 40 | Simpson Thacher | 2.7 | 12 | 2 |
| 41 | Troutman Sanders | 1.8 | 1 | 0 | 41 | Mayer Brown | 2.7 | 2 | 2 |
| 42 | Baker & Mckenzie | 1.7 | 1 | 0 | 42 | Pillsbury Winthrop | 2.7 | 2 | 0 |
| 43 | Holland & Knight | 1.7 | 0 | 1 | 43 | Bryan Cave | 2.6 | 2 | 0 |
| 44 | Goodwin Procter | 1.6 | 1 | 0 | 44 | Willkie Farr & Gallagher | 2.6 | 5 | 3 |
| 45 | Pillsbury Winthrop | 1.6 | 1 | 0 | 45 | Seward & Kissel | 2.5 | 2 | 1 |
| 46 | Paul, Hastings | 1.4 | 1 | 0 | D | 46 | Shearman & Sterling | 2.5 | 7 | 2 |
| 47 | Loeb & Loeb | 1.4 | 1 | 0 | 47 | Dechert | 2.3 | 2 | 1 | D |
| 48 | Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft | 1.3 | 0 | 1 | 48 | Kirkland & Ellis | 2.3 | 5 | 0 |
| 49 | Dla Piper Us | 1.1 | 1 | 0 | 49 | White & Case | 2.2 | 5 | 2 |
| 50 | Stroock & Stroock & Lavan | 1.0 | 0 | 1 | 50 | Kaye Scholer | 2.2 | 3 | 1 |
| 51 | Fried, Frank | 1.0 | 1 | 0 | 51 | Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher | 2.0 | 3 | 0 |
| 52 | Kaye Scholer | 1.0 | 1 | 0 | 52 | Covington & Burling | 1.5 | 1 | 0 |
| 53 | Davis Polk & Wardwell | 0.8 | 1 | 0 | 53 | Cahill Gordon & Reindel | 1.4 | 3 | 0 |
| 54 | Greenberg Traurig | 0.7 | 1 | 0 | 54 | Schulte Roth & Zabel | 1.4 | 3 | 2 |
| 55 | Sidley Austin | 0.7 | 1 | 0 | 55 | Mcdermott Will & Emery | 1.3 | 1 | 0 |
| 56 | King & Spalding | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | F | 56 | Stroock & Stroock & Lavan | 1.3 | 1 | 1 |
| 57 | Moses & Singer | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 57 | Paul, Hastings | 1.3 | 2 | 0 |
| 58 | Carter Ledyard & Milburn | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 58 | Greenberg Traurig | 1.0 | 1 | 0 |
| 59 | Blank Rome | 0.0 | * | * | 59 | Chadbourne & Parke | 0.9 | 0 | 1 |
| 60 | Pryor Cashman | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 60 | Morgan, Lewis & Bockius | 0.6 | 1 | 0 |
| 61 | Epstein Becker & Green | 0.0 | * | * | 61 | Moses & Singer | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | F |
| 62 | Fitzpatrick, Cella | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 62 | King & Spalding | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| 63 | Curtis, Mallet-prevost | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 63 | Troutman Sanders | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| 64 | Reed Smith | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 64 | Blank Rome | 0.0 | * | * |
| 65 | Hogan & Hartson | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 65 | Baker & Mckenzie | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| 66 | Seward & Kissel | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 66 | Pryor Cashman | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| 67 | Kelley Drye & Warren | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 67 | Epstein Becker & Green | 0.0 | * | * |
| 68 | Katten Muchin Rosenman | 0.0 | * | * | 68 | Fulbright & Jaworski | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| 69 | Fragomen, Del Rey | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 69 | Reed Smith | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| 70 | Winston & Strawn | 0.0 | * | * | 70 | Curtis, Mallet-prevost | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| 71 | Hughes Hubbard & Reed | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 71 | Katten Muchin Rosenman | 0.0 | * | * |
| 72 | Dechert | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 72 | Fragomen, Del Rey | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| 73 | Jones Day | 0.0 | * | * | 73 | Winston & Strawn | 0.0 | * | * |
| 74 | Milbank, Tweed | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 74 | Jones Day | 0.0 | * | * |
This chart ranks the percentage of out lgbt partners and associates at Manhattan law offices.
An asterisk indicates that the firm did not provide this information. We treated missing data as if it were zero.
The chart includes all firms with 100 attorneys in their Manhattan office. See
How We Did This for more on our ranking process.
Firms are graded on a curve. We divide the firms into quintiles, and then assign letter grades based on
this division. We combined the grades with those from other diversity rankings to create a
diversity report card of firms' overall minority employment rates. Note that firms with zero representation in any demographic category receive an "F"
regardless of quintile.
Bold denotes the top 20 most prestigious law firms in Manhattan, according to vault's 2009 regional rankings
Firms highlighted in pink laid off a number of attorneys equivalent to 15% or more of their U.S. non-partner lawyers after February 1, 2009.