The Real Work Behind Rankings and Awards for Lawyers

Every lawyer wants to do good work, and being recognised by a third-party source such as Chambers, Legal 500, Asian Legal Business (ALB), Law.asia, or Benchmark Litigation gives a sense of achievement and, more importantly, credibility in the market.

Securing that recognition is a multi-year programme rather than a one-off exercise. The firms and lawyers who are ranked tend to share the same habits: a clear reason for pursuing rankings, focused categories, matters that show how clients were helped, well-chosen client referees, and an honest review after every cycle.

Over the years, there has been growing awareness among lawyers and law firms of the need to secure a ranking. Before spending a great deal of time and mommoth money on this, you should have a clear sense of what the firm wants to achieve, and an understanding of what matters and experience need to be put forward to maximise the chances of being ranked. In short, rankings and awards need their own strategy, because the process takes years of effort, and that strategy has to align with the firm’s own strategy.

Sending a submission document is like sending a CV to a prospective employer: you need to give compelling reasons why you should be considered.

Key takeaways

• Decide why you want to be ranked before deciding where to submit.
• Choose matters that show how you helped clients achieve their objectives, not just the largest deals.
• Submit only in categories that play to your strengths, and tailor each matter to the category.
• Expect two to three years of consistent submissions before results show.
• Client referees carry heavy weight: choose day-to-day contacts who know your work, and tell them they have been listed.
• Review every cycle and use directory feedback to develop the practice, not only the next submission.

What is the difference between legal directory rankings and legal awards?

Legal directory rankings, such as Chambers and Partners and The Legal 500, are annual, research-based assessments of a practice or lawyer. Researchers review written submissions and speak to client referees and the wider market. Legal awards, such as those run by ALB, recognise a specific deal, team or firm achievement in a given year. Rankings build over successive cycles; awards can deliver recognition within a single cycle.

Which should you prioritise? Firms building a long-term reputation in a core practice should prioritise Chambers and Legal 500, because clients and RFP panels look for sustained, independently researched recognition. Firms with an exceptional deal, a new office or a newly built team can benefit from awards first. Most established firms do both, with the directory programme setting the priorities.

Why do you want to be ranked?

A firm should pursue rankings when recognition makes a real difference to its business, whether that is winning instructions, passing RFP assessments or attracting talent. Understand your market to work out whether securing a ranking in a relevant publication makes a difference to your business.

In Greater China, rankings and awards are among the top considerations when clients look for external counsel. In formal RFPs, rankings and awards are assessed alongside relevant experience.

Most firms want to be ranked because of the market credibility it brings. It also matters for recruitment, as it signals to prospective joiners the quality of work they can expect from the firm.

The reason shapes everything that follows. A firm seeking RFP credibility in banking and finance will plan its submissions differently from a firm trying to establish a new disputes practice.

Do you have relevant matters that speak to your strengths?

The strongest submission matters show how a lawyer or team helped a client achieve its objectives. It is not so much the headline or high-value matters you handle, although these help. What is equally important is how you helped your client achieve their objectives, and how you articulate that in your submission documents.

The Chambers and Partners research methodology lists the evidence researchers look for, including legal ability in the practice area and jurisdiction, client service, the strength of the wider team and cost-effectiveness. A matter description that only states the deal value and the parties addresses very few of these. For each matter, ask:

• What did the client need to achieve, and what stood in the way?
• What exactly did our lawyers do, as opposed to co-counsel or other advisers?
• What was novel, complex or cross-border about the work?
• What was the outcome for the client, commercially as well as legally?
• Does the matter show the depth of the team, not just one partner?

Choose only the categories you wish to focus on and that play to your strengths

Submitting in fewer, well-chosen categories usually works better than broad coverage, because every extra category thins out the matters and draws on the same client referees. Don’t spread yourself too thin. Focus on what you want to be known for and what your clients value, and build on that.

If you plan to use the same matter for different categories, tweak the descriptions to ensure they remain relevant to the category you are submitting for. A cross-border acquisition of a shipping business, for example, should stress the deal structure in a corporate and M&A submission, and the sector and regulatory issues in a shipping submission.

How do you compare with your competitors?

Rankings are relative: researchers assess each firm and lawyer against peers in the same practice area and jurisdiction. Just because you are doing great work and improving every year, it does not mean your competitors are standing still; they could be doing much better than you.

Before submitting, look at who is already ranked in the table you are targeting, what the published editorial says about them, and the kind of matters they are known for. That comparison shows whether the gap can realistically be closed in one or two cycles.

Don’t be discouraged if you are not ranked the first time you submit; it usually takes two to three years of sustained and consistent effort to see results.

No one-hit wonders: it’s a long game

Rankings reward consistency, because researchers look at each submission against previous years and against what the market says. Think of it as building a story. The first year, you take the first step, and you progress to steps two, three, four and so on. With each step, there must be progress that researchers can see. Think of your practice as a continuing story: the interesting work you do, the clients you have helped, the precedents you have set.

Consistency is the key. There must be compelling qualities evident in each submission for the researchers to consider your practice for a ranking. Skipping a year, or changing the lawyers put forward without explanation, interrupts that story.

How important are client referees?

Client referees are among the most influential parts of the directory process. Many lawyers, even seasoned ones, falter on this. The greatest endorsement of your work comes from your clients. Chambers does not publish a formal weighting, but client feedback is widely regarded as making up at least half of its assessment.

Two mistakes are common here:

1. Relying too heavily on clients in the senior ranks as referees. While including high-ranking clients as referees looks good on paper, they are often the ones with the least time to provide feedback on your practice. The better option is the clients you work with day to day, who know your work well. It also helps if these clients are articulate and give feedback that helps you stand out.
2. Failing to tell clients that they have been included as referees at all. Researchers’ emails are easily missed or filtered out when a client is not expecting them. A short note explaining that a researcher may be in touch makes a response far more likely.

Keep a spreadsheet of who you have listed as client referees over the years, so you can track who responded and who didn’t. This will help with selecting quality referees in future. Ask referees to let you know once they have spoken to a researcher, as Chambers does not confirm which referees gave feedback, although its Referee Management tool shows when referees have been contacted. The Legal 500 emails all referees and, according to its Asia Pacific FAQs, accepts clients, introducers of work and counsel as referees.

Assess your submissions annually

An annual review turns each cycle into intelligence for the next. After each rankings exercise, it is worth analysing what went well and what could be improved. It also helps to obtain the relevant intelligence reports from Chambers and Legal 500, to understand how the market and clients view the firm, its practices and its lawyers. Some of this feedback is an excellent starting point for practice and lawyer development, not only in preparing for the next round of submissions.

Signs that a submission programme is stalling

• The same matters appear year after year with no new work to show progress.
• Matter descriptions give deal values and parties but not the lawyer’s role or the client outcome.
• Referee lists are dominated by senior clients who rarely respond.
• The firm submits in categories where it has little recent work.
• Submissions are drafted in the final fortnight before the deadline.
• No one looks at why the results came out as they did.

Annual submission checklist

1. Confirm the business reason for each category and directory.
2. Benchmark the target category against the firms already ranked.
3. Collect matters throughout the year, not only before the deadline.
4. Speak to the responsible partners to capture their role, the difficulty and the outcome.
5. Tailor each matter description to the category it supports.
6. Select referees who know the work, and check your referee spreadsheet.
7. Brief referees before the research period opens.
8. Submit on time, using each directory’s current template and guidelines.
9. Review the results and any feedback reports, and record the lessons.

For more practical pointers, see our weekly tips on directory submissions.

Frequently asked questions

• How long does it take to get ranked in Chambers or Legal 500?
  Most practices need two to three years of consistent, well-prepared submissions before they are ranked. Some are ranked sooner where the work and client feedback are exceptional, but a first-year ranking should not be expected.
• Does it cost anything to submit to Chambers or Legal 500?
  Editorial submissions to both directories are free, and The Legal 500 states that law firms appear in its editorial sections free of charge. The real cost is the time spent by partners and BD teams, and any external support the firm chooses to use.
• Can a lawyer be ranked if the firm is not?
  Yes. Chambers states that individual lawyers can be ranked while their firm is not, and that firms can be ranked while individual lawyers are not.
• When are the submission deadlines?
  Each guide and region has its own annual timetable, and both directories apply strict deadlines. The Legal 500, for example, publishes its dates and templates on its Asia Pacific submissions page. Late referees may not be contacted at all.
• Can confidential matters be included in a submission?
  Both Chambers and Legal 500 allow firms to mark matters as confidential, meaning researchers can consider them without publishing them. Check each directory’s guidelines, and make sure client confidentiality obligations allow the matter to be shared with researchers.

If you are new to rankings and awards, or would like to learn more

Speak to someone with real experience in this area, who can help you identify your strengths and make sure you have the evidence to include in your submission documents. Also think about your client referees strategically, not just during submissions season.

Elevare Asia works with lawyers and law firms across Asia region (including Singapore, Malaysia, Southeast Asia and Greater China) on exactly this: building a rankings strategy, preparing submissions, and managing referees the right way. Our team brings more than 25 years of combined experience, including in-house BD roles at law firms, and has prepared over 1,000 submissions in the past ten years across the Chinese Mainland, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and South Korea. Having worked inside law firms, we understand the full cycle from the lawyer’s side.

We are happy to speak with you if you need. Contact us for more information or to book a free 30-minute consultation.