The Highest Tier Award (HTA) program is a new project of the Litigation Counsel of America.  It is intended to recognize law firm proficiency in a wide variety of litigation practice areas.  The initial program will address the largest law firms in the United States as listed by the NLJ (NLJ 250).  Among the NLJ 250, there are many overlapping litigation practices and some that are unique to less than the entire group.  In the overlapping practices, some categories, e.g. product liability, are broken down into sub-specialties, e.g. pharmaceutical and medical device product liability, so that proficiencies may be further distinguished.  The category listings are primarily alphabetical, except that product liability categories are grouped together. Thus, selection of firms in a particular specialty is intended to acknowledge those firms as being among the most proficient, but not rank them beyond the highest tier as a whole.

The vast majority of LCA Fellows sitting on the selection committee, designated the Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP), maintain practice specialties within NLJ 250 firms. The BRP is chiefly an advisory and voting body and has no travel or meeting obligations. Recognizing the premium on BRP members' time, members will be given thirty (30) days in which to complete and submit selections.  It is recognized that BRP members who are themselves highly proficient in one area of the law are not necessarily acutely aware of other firms’ reputations, competency, and excellence in other fields.  Thus, BRP members are not expected to vote in all categories, although they may.

It is recognized that selection methodology is based upon subjective criteria.  While notoriety for individual case results may be a part of the legal profession and society, quantification of the relative value of case results is seldom attainable. That is, the very nature of our legal system, wherein each case’s individual facts make it distinguishable, makes measurement of individual case results impractical. However, as professionals, lawyers are able to recognize and appreciate proficiency, competency, talent, and relative success within the profession.

Given the above, BRP members listing firms in specific categories should do so based upon their knowledge of firms in such category.  Consultation is permitted with respect to clarifying for one’s ballot which firm(s) should be included.  

BRP members may select the top forty (40) firms in all, any, some, or no categories listed, or may select less than forty (40) firms in any particular category. That is, while one BRP member may select the top forty (40) firms in all categories designated, another BRP member may select only a few firms in very few categories.

In assessing performance and proficiency of firms within a specific category, BRP members may rely on any source of information they may possess or gain.  In listing firms, each BRP member should consider a variety of indicators, including (1) the reputation of the firm in a particular practice area, (2) the reputation and competency of the individual firm lawyers practicing within a practice area, (3) the peer assessment of the individual firm lawyers practicing within a practice area, (4) lawyer retention within a practice area, (5) client retention within a practice area, (6) industry strength of clients in a practice area, and (7) relative geographic influence of a firm in a specific practice area (whether a firm is proficient in a practice area nationally, regionally, or locally given its presence as a national, regional or local firm).

BRP members may list their own firms in the selection process.  Where multiple LCA Fellows from the same firm have submitted ballots that include their firm in more than eight practice areas (52 practices X 40 firms = 2,080 awards ÷ 250 = 8.3 average per firm), and all 40 places in all of the practice areas in which the multiple-Fellow firm has been listed are filled, then additional consultation with such voting Fellows and additional weighing of those ballots will be conducted by the society.  However, no single firm with multiple LCA Fellows serving on the BRP may receive a total number of HTAs that is more than twenty (20) percent greater than the average number of HTAs received by the next fifty (50) firms receiving the highest number of votes.  In the event an adjustment in total single firm HTAs becomes necessary, the single firm multiple LCA Fellows serving on the BRP will be consulted for clarification of selections.  This is not to say that a firm cannot receive more than eight (8) HTAs, but rather that in order to balance the process fairly on behalf of unrepresented NLJ 250 firms, the LCA will seek to clarify the results so that the methodology is applied appropriately.

Some firms from among the NLJ 250 have received practice awards as presented by respected entities and publications with a national presence in the legal profession. In order to create consistency between those limited awards, as well as assist BRP members in their selections, some practice categories list such award recipients as "pre-qualifiers" in those categories.  However, BRP members are not bound by the listing of pre-qualifiers.  In accordance with ballot instructions, BRP members may leave or remove pre-qualifiers as they desire.     

Online practice area ballot forms can be accessed by BRP members only.  Each category submission must be identified by individually-assigned BRP member identification numbers in order to be counted.   

The Methodology and Guidelines for Selection of LCA 2010 Highest Tier Awards is subject to amendment upon consultation with BRP members.

The following instruction will be included on ballots, namely:
How to vote:  There are 52 practice categories below.  You may vote for up to forty (40) firms in each category.  Panel members may vote for their own firms. Please enter your votes with a slash between firms (Jones Day/Boies/Cravath…). Using the entire formal firm name is not necessary, provided distinctions can be made.  For instance, Adorno need not be followed by Yoss, etc., but Baker should be followed by Botts, Daniels, Donelson or McKenzie in order to properly designate your choice.  Some categories have pre-qualifying firms listed.  If you agree with a firm on the pre-qualified list, simply leave the appropriate box checked.  If you disagree with a pre-qualified firm’s placement, then click off the check mark, leaving the box blank.  You do not have to vote in every category.  In a category where you leave, for instance, twenty (20) boxes checked among pre-qualifiers, you should limit your typed-in selections to twenty (20).  Between pre-qualifiers and “Your Nominee(s),” there should be no more than forty (40) selections per category.  In order to prevent losing your selections, it is suggested that you submit on a category by category basis, as closing your browser will result in losing non-submitted entries. Categories that have been submitted will be displayed in red on the category list.  If you have any questions regarding the process, please contact G. Steven Henry at 646.734.0878 or steve.henry@litcounsel.org for clarification.

Practice categories include the following: 

Accountants’ Liability Aerospace/Aviation Antitrust Litigation Appellate Practice Bad Faith Defense Banking and Financial Institutions Litigation Bankruptcy Litigation Business/Commercial Litigation Civil RICO Defense Civil Rights Litigation Class Action Defense Complex Commercial Litigation Construction Litigation Copyright Litigation Defamation/First Amendment Litigation Directors’ and Officers’ Liability Energy and Natural Resources Litigation Entertainment, Sports and Gaming Litigation Environmental/Toxic Tort Litigation ERISA Litigation False Claims Act Defense Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Defense General Litigation Governmental, Regulatory and Internal Investigations Healthcare Litigation Insurance Litigation Intellectual Property Litigation International Arbitration International Business Litigation International Tort Labor and Employment Litigation Maritime Litigation Mass Tort Litigation Matrimonial Litigation Medical Malpractice Defense Mergers, Acquisitions and Business Transaction Litigation Patent Litigation Personal Injury Defense Automotive Product Liability Consumer Product Liability General Product Liability Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Product Liability Professional Liability Real Estate Litigation Securities/Shareholder Litigation Tax Litigation Trademark Litigation Transportation Litigation Trusts and Estates Litigation White Collar Crime Wage and Hour Defense Workers’ Compensation Defense