Firm Index · Practice ranking
Top Immigration firms
The firms with the deepest immigration footprint, ranked 0–100 by the Sartori Firm Index.
Leading Immigration firms by Index
These are the law firms with the strongest public Immigration footprint, ranked by the Sartori Firm Index — a 0–100 measure of scale, reach and hiring built entirely from public data. The ranking reflects how large and active each firm's presence is, not the quality or prestige of its immigration practice. Depth labels (“major”, “strong”, “present”) show how central immigration is to each firm relative to its size. Headcount is the attorney footprint we map from public sources, shown as ranges. Explore the Immigration talent market →
| # | Firm | Index | Depth | Tier | Attorneys mapped | Top markets |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Clark Hill | 59.9 | strong | International | 1,000–1,500 | Detroit, Pittsburgh, Dallas… |
| 2 | Littler Mendelson | 56.8 | present | Global | 1,500–2,500 | San Francisco, Bogotá, Los Angeles… |
| 3 | Fragomen Del Rey Bernsen & Loewy | 56.2 | major | Global | 500–1,000 | New York, London, San Francisco… |
| 4 | Ogletree Deakins | 51.8 | strong | Global | 1,000–1,500 | Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco… |
| 5 | Fisher Phillips | 51.5 | present | International | 500–1,000 | Los Angeles, Atlanta, San Diego… |
| 6 | Fredrikson & Byron | 48.6 | strong | International | 500–1,000 | Minneapolis, Des Moines, Fargo… |
| 7 | Gunster | 48.4 | present | National | 250–500 | Miami, Tampa, Jacksonville… |
| 8 | Jackson Lewis | 48 | present | National | 1,000–1,500 | New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco… |
| 9 | McCarthy Tétrault | 47.7 | present | International | 1,000–1,500 | Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver… |
| 10 | Cole Scott & Kissane | 47.4 | present | National | 500–1,000 | Miami, Orlando, Tampa… |
| 11 | Harris Beach Murtha | 46.1 | strong | National | 250–500 | New York, Rochester, Boston… |
| 12 | McInnes Cooper | 42.5 | strong | International | 250–500 | Toronto, Sydney |
| 13 | Porter Wright Morris & Arthur | 39.3 | present | National | 100–250 | Columbus, Chicago, Pittsburgh… |
| 14 | Pryor Cashman | 37.8 | strong | National | 250–500 | New York, Los Angeles, Miami |
| 15 | Lewis Silkin | 37.4 | strong | International | 500–1,000 | London, Belfast, Cardiff… |
| 16 | Butzel Long | 37.2 | strong | National | 100–250 | Troy, Detroit, Grand Rapids… |
| 17 | Harter Secrest & Emery | 36.5 | strong | National | 100–250 | Rochester, Buffalo, Albany… |
| 18 | Constangy Brooks Smith | 36.2 | strong | National | 250–500 | Los Angeles, Atlanta, Philadelphia… |
| 19 | Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman | 35.4 | present | National | 100–250 | Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Denver… |
| 20 | Miller Johnson Snell & Cummiskey | 35.1 | strong | National | 100–250 | Grand Rapids, Detroit, Chicago… |
| 21 | McLane Middleton | 34.8 | present | International | 100–250 | Manchester, Boston, Portsmouth… |
| 22 | Koley Jessen | 34.7 | present | National | 100–250 | Omaha |
| 23 | Bates Wells | 34 | strong | National | 100–250 | London |
| 24 | Kiernan Trebach | 33.4 | present | National | 100–250 | Washington, New York, Boston… |
| 25 | Croke Fairchild Duarte & Beres | 32.8 | present | National | 100–250 | Chicago, New York |
| 26 | Tonkon Torp | 32.1 | strong | National | 100–250 | Portland, Salem |
| 27 | Berry Appleman & Leiden | 32 | major | National | 250–500 | Dallas, Washington, San Francisco… |
| 28 | Ellenoff Grossman & Schole | 31.4 | present | National | 100–250 | New York, Los Angeles |
| 29 | FordHarrison | 30.9 | present | National | 100–250 | Tampa, Atlanta, Los Angeles… |
| 30 | Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp | 30.3 | strong | National | 100–250 | Los Angeles, New York, Washington |
| 31 | Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick | 28.2 | present | National | 100–250 | Washington |
| 32 | Kitch Drutchas Wagner | 27.7 | present | National | 100–250 | Detroit, Chicago, Lansing… |
| 33 | Selendy Gay | 27.5 | present | National | 100–250 | New York |
| 34 | Ramos Ripoll Schuster | 27.1 | present | National | 50–100 | Guadalajara, Mexico City, Monterrey |
| 35 | Keker Van Nest & Peters | 26.7 | present | National | 100–250 | San Francisco |
| 36 | Baron & Budd | 26.2 | present | National | 50–100 | Dallas, Los Angeles, Washington… |
| 37 | Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro | 26 | present | International | 100–250 | Seattle, Boston, San Francisco… |
| 38 | Bell Nunnally & Martin | 23.7 | present | National | 50–100 | Dallas |
| 39 | Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass | 23.6 | present | National | 50–100 | New York, San Francisco, Houston… |
| 40 | Martenson, Hasbrouck & Simon | 22.7 | present | National | 50–100 | Atlanta, San Diego, Sacramento… |
| 41 | Cacheaux, Cavazos & Newton | 22.2 | present | International | 50–100 | Mexico City, Monterrey, Ciudad Juárez… |
| 42 | Vaughan Avocats | 16.6 | present | International | Under 50 | Paris, Toulouse, Rennes |
Index measures public footprint and momentum, not quality or prestige. Methodology. Spot an error? Tell us.
Related views
Immigration talent market
Every firm and credible mover in this practice, mapped and qualified.
Explore the marketWho's hiring in Immigration
Firms advertising live roles in this practice on their own careers sites.
See hiring nowThe full Sartori Firm Index
All firms ranked by footprint and momentum.
View the indexImmigration firm rankings — common questions
How are the top Immigration firms ranked?
Firms are ordered by the Sartori Firm Index — a 0–100 score built from public signals (scale, geographic and practice reach, live hiring). This page lists firms for whom immigration is a leading practice. The Index measures public footprint and momentum, not the quality of any firm's immigration work.
What does the depth label mean?
“Major”, “strong” and “present” describe how large a share of the firm's mapped attorneys work in immigration, relative to the firm's overall size — a footprint signal, not a quality judgement.
Hiring in Immigration?
Turn the ranking into a shortlist.
Whether you are building a team or weighing a move, we listen first. No obligation.