Not sure how this turned into a Chicago discussion, but...
It seems clear from all the evidence that Chicago is one of the best schools to attend if you want a secure future/career. It places clerkships in the top 3 or 4, and because it's a small class, everyone who wants a great job gets one. This simply isn't true at schools like Penn or Duke.
As for the teaching issue, this reminds me of an LSAT course discussion I read earlier. In that case, the issue was high scores vs. teaching ability. While teaching ability is obviously relevant, so is really knowing your stuff. So in the absence of actual evidence indicating otherwise, I'd have to go with the more cited profs. (Both cites profs and uncited profs can be good, and both can also suck. So unless and until you know, it makes more sense to go with the person who at least appears to know the stuff real well.)
As for the Duke / Top 10 issue: according to historical reputation ratings, Duke is in fact a borderline Top 10. Duke and Penn traditionally share this position. Neither really has the reputation of most higher rated schools, including Boalt. However, they do appear to have an edge over Gtown, NW, etc.
However, it would be a mistake to say that "law firms" rely on USNews at this level. They already have a perception of the top programs pretty much fixed in their minds, and this won't change unless someone like NYU makes significant improvements in their student numbers, etc. (NYU's overall rep still lags behind most traditional top-10 programs.)