If you’re a lawyer, is there a chance that, in your career, you’ll be honored for your achievements in the same way that journalists get Pulitzers, scientists get Nobels, mathematicians get Fields Medals, etc.? About the only thing I can think of is the quill pen that the Supreme Court gives as a memento to lawyers who argue before the court. I suppose that an attorney who has a stack of quills is the legal equivalent of a journalist who has a stack of Pulitzers.
No, we keep score with dollars. 
But seriously, many organizations di honor some of their members with things like “Trial Lawyer of the Year,” or “Professionalism Award.”
Here’s a list of recent honorees in Alaska.
https://alaskabar.org/for-lawyers/awards-award-recipients/
It’s not at the same level as a Nobel Prize, but it’s nice.
There are numerous awards attorneys can receive.
Here is a list of some: Lawyer Awards: Top Local, National, and International Awards List | Clio
That said, I do not think any carry the broad prestige that something like a Pulitzer has if only because almost no one but other lawyers will be aware of who has one and why it is an honor to have it.
Kinda like the Fields Medal given to mathematicians. It’s a big deal and a huge honor but I doubt anyone can name someone who received one off of the top of their head (unless they are a mathematician).
Although thanks to Good Will Hunting a fair number of people could identify what the Fields Medal is, if not name a winner.
I can name someone who didn’t get one: John Nash. He was quite salty about it, too, according to the book, A Beautiful Mind.
Is There an Equivalent to the Pulitzer Prize In Law?
No.
The Pulitzer Prize has never been married, and therefore has no in-laws
Some lawyers receive a Nobel Prize, see e.g. for efforts to promote international law (see Nobel Prize-Winning Lawyers: Part One | In Custodia Legis: Law Librarians of Congress at the bottom for two actual practising lawyers instead of politicians).
If you count that, then there’s going to be plenty of Nobel Prize-winning lawyers, simply because the Peace Prize often goes to politicians, a large percentage of which are lawyers by background.
Another Nobel Prize that has a (relatively) high chance of going to a lawyer, or at least a person working on issues closely related to law, is economics (yes, I know, the " Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences"…). For instance, Hayek, one of the 1974 laureates, had dual doctorates in law and economics. Coase, the 1991 laureate, did research on property rights and transaction costs and, while an economist himself, taught at a law school (of the University of Chicago).
But if the question is whether there is a dedicated prize to the highest achievements specifically in the legal field, then no, I’m not aware of anything like that. There are, of course, “lawyer of the year” awards given by bar associations, but they honour practicing lawyers, not cutting-edge research. For that, the closest equivalent would probably be the position of an editor at a prestigious journal.
As I tried to point out, I discounted politicians, I specifically meant two lawyers who got the prize for their legal work in the field of international law. But admittedly it may not have been the quality or innovativeness of their legal analysis as well as the practical success of their efforts that counted, and in that respect it is true that these are outside what the OP intended.
But “practical success of their efforts” is how most lawyers are considered. I hadn’t read the OP as saying only interested in academics in the legal field.
Frankly, if you ask me who are the best lawyers in my jurisdiction, my mind doesn’t turn to the academics. I start thinking of lawyers in practice.
Old times Ontario lawyers often talk about Queen’s Counsel. I have no idea if this is a big deal or not, nor know much about it. But people talk about it as if it is. I don’t think it exists anymore in the sense that it is still awarded.
Because law is so local, I would guess there are a thousand worthy lawyers unknown to the public but respected by their peers. The ones who defend the famous are probably well known and opinions likely vary. Then there are guys who get more shameless with time, not to mention any former mayors of New York who advised Presidents.
Queen’s Counsel is an ancient position in English common law. The first Queen’s counsel was Francis Bacon, appointed by Elizabeth I.
Originally it was a purely descriptive term, describing a lawyer retained to act for the monarch. By implication, those would be pretty good lawyers, since the monarch would have the money and prestige to attract the best lawyers. It gradually became a mark of high-quality barristers, and an honorific.
The position was exported to the British Empire, including Canada.
It’s been abandoned in Quebec because of the monarchical connection.
In Ontario, during the long dominance of the Tories at the provincial level, it became a patronage appointment. The joke was that QC stood for “Quite Conservative”, and a lawyer would only get appointed if they made regular donations to the PCs (provincially). Given that record, it’s no surprise that when Peterson finally toppled the PCs, one of his changes was to stop appointing QCs.
However, in the other eight provinces, the governments took steps to move away from it being a patronage appointment. Each of the other eight provinces now have review committees of various sorts, with reps from the law societies, bar associations, and the judiciary, to make recommendations to the provincial Attorney general for appointments. In some of those provinces, there are statutory limits on the number of appointments allowed in a year, while others have customary limits that are generally respected. In those provinces, QCs are generally seen as a mark of professional accomplishment.
As well, the provincial AG and the Deputy Minister usually get a QC on appointment to those positions, because they literally are the head of the counsel who advise the government, ie Her Majesty.
At the federal level, it’s generally only the Minister of Justice and senior Deoartment of Justice lawyers who get a federal QC appointment.
Thanks for an informative reply.
You’re welcome.
Here’s an article from the Alberta legal education society about an appointment ceremony there some years ago:
https://www.lesaonline.org/qc-celebrations/
And the reaction of one recipient:
As you may recall, I’m originally from Ontario. I had a great-uncle there who was a longtime, and very well-respected lawyer, and he also had a QC. While he was fairly conservative, it never occurred to me that he supported a political party other than at the ballot box, though it’s entirely possible. Anyway, when Ontario did away with QCs, he was furious. I believe his business cards continued to have “QC” after his name, despite the fact that the designation no longer existed.
We have QCs here in Alberta, and as @Northern_Piper pointed out, they tend to be for professional accomplishment over years of service to the profession. I know a few; they’re great lawyers who have been practising a long time.
I don’t think Ontario formally abolished the position - just stopped awarding them.
Oh, they did stop awarding them. No more QCs going forward. I’m pretty sure that existing ones were grandfathered in, and my great-uncle misunderstood. Not entirely out of the question, as he was quite elderly (early-mid 80s), and could have been confused about what the Law Society was telling him about the QC designation. He kept his license more out of habit than anything else, and was effectively retired by that time. But he still had the business cards.
Not meaning to cast aspersions on your great-uncle! I think the patronage aspect was a gradual slide, and was quite pronounced by the mid-80s, when Peterson ended the appointments.
Here’s the entry from the Wikipedia article:
No problem at all. I have no idea when he received it–he’d been practising for decades by 1985 (probably graduated Osgoode Hall sometime in the 1930s), so it’s possible that he received it before things went down the really steep part of the slippery slope.
I think as well that what happened in Ontario served as a warning to lawyers in the other provinces - eliminate the patronage or the QC will be eliminated!