There’s no doubt that for law firms of all shapes and sizes, ranking in the legal directories is regarded as one of the most important marketing objectives of the year. Professional reputations, both of firms and individuals, can be hugely enhanced by a recommendation in Chambers and Partners or The Legal 500.
A good ranking is not just desirable for its own sake, but also because it allows firms to continue to capitalise on their success by posting the news of a recommendation on social media and corporate websites. It also demonstrates excellence and builds trust with clients. It’s a “badge of honour” that can be used throughout the year – including, literally, to enhancing corporate branding!
But what about those firms or teams within a firm who fail to reach (or improve) the rankings despite making detailed submissions? Given the amount of time spent collating information, they may well wonder whether to bother again.
Although I have gone through the submissions process at various law firms including a Magic circle one, I was keen to ensure that my guidance is on the mark so I touched base with Simon Christian, the editor of Chambers HNW Guide (and former deputy on the Chambers UK guide) who was kind enough to share his thoughts with me on a zoom call earlier this month.
Here are some top tips:
- Be realistic in what you are trying to achieve. Review last year’s edition carefully. If your firm isn’t of equal calibre to the firms that are ranked in the bottom band, consider carefully if it is worth expending the resources required to enter this year?
- Diversity at your firm. Increasingly this is now a metric that will be scrutinised so make sure you have relevant data available. The Chambers form now includes a diversity section – while your diversity record will not affect the rankings, consider if you have a good story to tell? If not, how can you improve this for next time?
- Pick the right matters. While it is not necessary to include the maximum number of matters permitted, Simon Christian advises that, “if you only have three or four matters that you consider to be stand-out highlights, it might be worth thinking about whether this practice area is the right one for your firm.” He goes on, “if you have space for additional matters, you could also consider including work led by more junior members of the team. These probably won’t be as complex or high value as the matters led by your lead partners, but they do help to show the bench strength of your department.”
- Make it easy for the researchers: Bear in mind that while the researchers are well-educated and have a good understanding of commercial law generally, they are not specialists in your particular area of law. Simon advises that “from a writing standpoint, clear effective jargon-free descriptions of your highlight matters and an explanation of what makes your work stand out are always greatly appreciated.” Simon also suggests that you “say what makes this matter interesting – is it the international/cross border aspects, the value, does it set a new precedent, did you find an innovative solution to help the client, etc? “ Avoid clichés such as “innovative” or “ground breaking” unless you can back them up.
- Start a dialogue with the researchers. Do this as soon as possible. Being as helpful as you can is likely to reap benefits. But, don’t be alarmed if a researcher doesn’t interview you, it’s not indicative of whether you will rank or not – they only have time to interview a cross-section of firms.
- Don’t “cut and paste” a generic submission. The two key UK legal directories have different criteria and guidelines so follow them to the letter. Other factors, such as client interviews and team size, are only a secondary consideration. This suggests that it should be feasible for a small team or a sole practitioner to make the grade providing their work is outstanding.
- Use appropriate referees. For example, if you’re a family or private client lawyer, third party referees are more likely to respond to the researchers’ request for interview and their views may carry more weight because individual clients usually can’t make comparisons between different firms. A family lawyer could therefore choose a forensic accountant, a private client lawyer could choose a wealth manager. Other lawyers should choose clients who can provide an overview and compare your service with other law firms. Remember to seek permission from your referees and to keep an eye on the research schedule so that you can remind your referees that the researchers are shortly going to be in touch.
- Prioritise. If time is short, prioritise your referee list. Don’t forget that the referee research timeline is very specific so make sure you follow it.
- Meet the deadline. Again, fairly obvious but, if it becomes apparent that this isn’t going to be possible, negotiate a realistic extension for your submission. Chambers does not grant formal extensions but will still accept submissions sent after the deadline so long as research has not been completed; they advise firms to prioritise completing and uploading their referee spreadsheets as close to the deadline as possible.
- Try, try and try again. It can take two to three years to achieve a ranking. Each year the research team will be more familiar with your firm and your practice area. My experience suggests that it is harder to fall out of the rankings completely then it is to get that first prized mention so it is worth persevering. Indeed, The Legal 500 state that a firm’s historic track record, typically the past three to five years, is taken into account.
Recent Posts
International Women’s Day and lessons on PR
PR SOS: how PR can save your business in a crisis
DIY PR for lawyers and accountants
Need some help with PR? Feel free to drop me an email to arrange a 30 minute complimentary call or take a look at some of the packages I offer law firms, accountancy practices and other b2b businesses.