Bibliographie sélective OHADA

Recent scandals have brought rankings to the forefront of the legal profession. Several of the most prestigious academic institutions have withdrawn from being ranked, citing the problematic nature of the rankings. However, rankings persist for both legal academics and practice, and there is substantial sentiment to improve the methodologies, with little detail as to how to improve. In this paper, we rank law firms on their clients’ IPO performance. We focus on the most relevant outcomes: litigation, first-day returns, disclosure, and legal fees. The focus on these measures provides benefits relative to other methodologies, which typically focus on inputs or size-related characteristics. Namely, this ranking is less manipulable and more accurately captures performance metrics that matter most to clients’ shareholders. Our rankings control for observable and unobservable deal characteristics, which helps ensure we capture law firm quality, not client traits. With the rankings based on legal fees, potential clients can compare the benefits of a particular law firm (e.g., lower litigation or higher selling prices) against the additional cost of hiring a higher-quality law firm. Hence, our rankings allow for a value-for-the-money comparison of law firms for clients selling shares in an IPO.