Category: Best Lawyers

To Submit Or Not To Submit: When is the right time to push for a ranking?

Posted on | by Alex Boyes

As a certain Danish prince knows all too well, indecision can be a killer. You may feel your practice has all the ingredients for a ranking, but there might be a nagging doubt keeping you from committing those precious hours to pull together a submission. After all, there’s nothing more frustrating than putting all that time and effort into the directories submission process only to result in no ranking and much soul searching. Helpfully there is some groundwork that can be done before drafting a submission. Below are some tips to consider when mulling over whether to submit.

Reading last year’s rankings

This may seem obvious, but looking at last year’s rankings – not just at which firms/individuals were ranked, but also at what was written about the ranked firms – can be a useful starting point when assessing your practice’s prospects for a ranking. Compare and contrast your practice’s work and team with the ranked firms – does that work match up in terms of scope, scale and complexity? If the answer is yes, then it would most likely be worth submitting.

Do you regularly see ranked firms on the other side of matters? Not only is that a good indication that you should be submitting for this area, researchers will also take this into account, so make sure you’re highlighting the point in your submissions.

The definition conundrum

Figuring out what work does and doesn’t fall within the scope of the relevant practice area can be a challenging one, particularly as these can differ in some subtle and not-so-subtle ways between the various directories. Codified definitions are a helpful starting point where available (Chambers and Partners provides practice area definitions on its website here), but those are not always available or as clear as they could be. When in doubt (and where an examination of last year’s rankings as above doesn’t clarify the situation), it’s always worth reaching out to the directory directly. The relevant editor will be able to provide specific advice on what type of work should be covered in a submission and what should be omitted.

Why is it important to lock this down before you start pulling together a submission? On the practice’s side, there’s nothing more frustrating than going through the process of gathering your strongest work highlights only to be told that many of those matters don’t fall within the scope of the relevant practice area. From the perspective of the researcher, having to sift through a submission full of extraneous information can be equally irksome – researchers have to review large volumes of data in pretty tight timeframes, so providing clear, concise and relevant information will be greatly appreciated.

It’s a marathon, not a sprint – the importance of demonstrating track record

The directories place a fairly heavy emphasis on a practice’s track record, particularly when looking at possible new entrants to the rankings. That’s great if you have a well-established practice – highlighting the practice’s past work highlights will help to illustrate that track record – but what if the practice is a nascent one? You have a couple of options: wait until the practice has some time and experience under its belt before submitting, or putting in a submission straight out of the gate. The former might seem more sensible than the latter, however putting in a submission early on into the practice’s lifespan – even if the prospects of a ranking off the back of that submission might be slim – could help to lay a foundation on which to build in subsequent submissions. Researchers will take notice if you can point to past submissions as a demonstration of the practice’s growth trajectory and track record of work, so think of a submission as an investment into a future ranking in that instance.

Learning from past attempts

As strange as it may sound, one of the benefits of submitting and failing to get a ranking is the ability to ask for feedback on how your submission failed to meet the criteria for entry. This will enable you to address those points in future submissions and strengthen the prospects of attaining a ranking. The initial disappointment of failing to achieve a ranking can be mitigated by the knowledge that you have access to data that can help you refine and improve your messaging going forward.

The Legal 500 will provide detailed feedback on request while Chambers and Partners will provide limited feedback, however detailed insight can be purchased through their Chambers Unpublished product which, while expensive, can be a worthwhile investment on a selective basis. If opting to go this route, the best approach would be to target core practice areas.

Although these tips have largely focused on submissions for areas where a practice has previously not been ranked, this also applies for ranked practices that want feedback on how to improve their rankings. In addition to doing the above, reviewing what the directories wrote about your practice can provide some additional insight. Some of the things to look out for include the following: Lack of feedback (indicates that your referees were unresponsive or failed to provide substantive feedback); unimpressive work highlight information (may suggest that more work needs to be done to improve the quality/detail of the work highlights supplied in the submission); a narrow focus on one aspect of the practice (may indicate that more work needs to be done to substantiate your work highlight information with evidence).

There will always be an element of jumping into the unknown when it comes to submitting to the directories for the first time/submitting for a new practice area, but incorporating the tips above will help to manage expectations and provide the best possible case for making a submission.

My name is Alex Boyes and I am one of the directors at SavageNash Legal Communications. I’m a former editor at The Legal 500 and also worked at a large international law firm. Together, SavageNash Legal Communications has over 40 years’ directories-related experience, from both sides of the directories process. If you’d like more guidance on making submissions to Chambers or The Legal 500 in the next cycle, please do get in touch via our website or on LinkedIn.

The NFL and Directories – The Stretch

Posted on | by Mike Nash

They say don’t combine business with pleasure. Sage advice. I’m going to ignore it.

You see, The Legal 500 EMEA deadline is here and so is the NFL Preseason. And there are only three more Sundays until the next Chambers USA and Europe deadlines. Yup, you guessed it: only three more Sundays until the NFL Regular Season.

Anyone who’s spent enough time in my company will know I’ve spent a long time working in directories and even longer loving American football. There are more links between these things than you can possibly imagine.

So, in a sequence of tenuous segues and comparators, I mash up some powerful lessons for legal directories out of the magic of the NFL. If you feel the need to look away, do so now! Law firms can end up saying the same things as other law firms, much in the way that NFL teams copy what works and often run the same offense (US spelling for this as it seems wrong to use UK spelling in this context!). So be the Ravens, not the Lions. But be Juju, not Antonio.

Bonus points if you figured out who Philip Rivers thinks is wide open in the picture above.

Lesson 1) The Longest Yard. No, not the film. I mean Kevin Dyson catching a pass from the late, lamented Steve McNair (RIP) and straining every sinew to get the ball across the line on the final play of Super Bowl XXXIV but being held one yard short by the iron grip of Mike Jones. One of the best Super Bowls ever played. And simultaneously the worst, if you’re a Titans fan. It was also the last and only time the Titans made the Big Dance. But there’s always next year. Or this year!

Translation: Don’t let last year’s ranking disappointment, erm, disappoint you. Just like an NFL team with $177 million for player salaries this year, keep trucking for the next cycle. Persistence pays off because the directories want to see consistent performance over time. Learn from the errors of last year with honest self-analysis: what’s new? What’s different? What did the directories tell us? What didn’t the directories tell us? What does the writeup reveal? Modify the messages for this year to show what you do outstandingly well, not just an everyone-says-it list of what you can do. If your client referees didn’t respond, change the list for this year and communicate to them how quick and painless it is for them but how important it is to you. Promise them a year off from being a referee if they reply!

Lesson 2) Moving on. You might be Mike McCarthy but, now that you’ve moved on, you’re still Mike McCarthy and you still need a job. When you get a job, you still won’t have Aaron Rodgers; even worse, you’ve been replaced by a young offensive mind who was such an offensive genius that it took him nigh on half a season to work out THAT DERRICK HENRY IS A BEAST and you could, you know, hand him the ball once in a while and things might go better. Life isn’t fair, Mike McCarthy. When you’re Andy Reid, meanwhile, you have a big name and an emerging superstar. But you didn’t win a Super Bowl at your last place of employment (the one which won a Super Bowl without you just after you left) and now your current team just looked like world beaters until being ground into the dust just short of the aforementioned Big Dance. So, what does this season hold for you?

Translation: It’s common for big-name lawyers and teams of lawyers to expect the directories to transpose a prior ranking of the person or practice from one law firm to another. But it doesn’t always work out that way and the benefit of the move needs to be outlined and evidenced. Here are steps you can take to improve the chances that it does: (1) make sure the move is brought to the attention of the researcher prominently, and update the researcher if the move happens during the research period; (2) substantiate the person’s move by showcasing which clients or pieces of work have moved over to the new practice – the directories want to see that the lawyer/team is still in demand and clients following is a sure sign. If the move occurred in a tricky period – just before the submission deadline or after research ended – then update the researcher as you go along. A deadline that is in September, for example, might not finish research until 1-3 months later, so use that period to gather some new work highlights for the new arrival and provide them to the researcher during the research period. (3) Make sure to provide client referees to support the lawyer or team. Lastly, (4) be patient. If the move happened soon before research, then it might take a year for enough clients to move across for you to be able to make the convincing argument for the team or lawyer to be ranked higher. If, like Andy Reid, you have a rising star in your team (of counsel, senior associate, young partner), make sure to flag it up to the directories and substantiate their case for recognition. This is going to help the individual but it’s also going to help show the team’s depth of talent. Let’s assume you can’t put them on an NFL field for a critical no-look pass, so let’s just settle for evidencing the work they’ve been involved in and making sure some of the client referees can speak about them.

Lesson 3) The Stretch. Stretching is important. Keeps those hamstrings loose. Winning down the stretch is important, otherwise your 6-2 start turns into a 9-7 limp backwards into the Playoffs and a first-round loss. Jeff Fisher is Bill Belichick is a stretch. Tom Brady* is the most successful quarterback in NFL history. Blake Bortles is not. To take the decision to pay Blake Bortles vast sums in an effort to persuade yourselves and the public that he will lead the path to greatness would be a stretch. Oh. Wait. You did what?

Translation: Don’t pad the unpaddable. I’m talking arguments in favour of a law firm’s practice here, not shoulder pads. It is an unadorned truth that most good to excellent law firm practices in any area of the law could (and usually do) say in their directory submissions that they can do everything. The issue is that any researcher will be presented with anything from high dozens to 150 submissions saying much the same during one reporting period (across one jurisdiction or multiple practice areas), thus said similar messages from many sources blur into one. So, dial in on what the practice has done exceptionally well (a) traditionally and (b) recently and make those the focus. Aside from a brief acknowledgement of the practice’s comprehensive scope, focus opening arguments on the points of difference. When set against a field of a dozen or so law firms with similar scope and presenting high-calibre work, it’s the sophisticated, difficult, innovative and/or just downright biggest ever which make the difference. Placement of the most impactful (precedent-setting or first of a kind / largest) deals and cases high up the running order is a crucial part of that because researchers wade through thousands of examples of work. State the difference-making nature of the matter explicitly, rather than leaving it implicit on the assumption that it speaks for itself. Often, it doesn’t.

*Note to Pats fans: I said most successful. Note to 49ers fans: I said most successful.

Lesson 4) Ringing the Bell. The NFL has come a long way in terms of health safeguards since the issue of concussion arose. Many other sports have now followed suit with concussion protocol tests for players suspected of being injured in this way. Helmets are more loose-fitting. Team-mates and opponents no longer “ring the bell”. Certain types of tackles and techniques have been outlawed from the game or become obsolete. The demise of the XFL rather proved that spear tackles are gone for good. After one of the biggest crises the game has endured, the NFL has been upfront about how it is working to make things better.

Translation: In the same forward-looking spirit, it is worth considering your law firm’s statistics and initiatives for diversity, inclusion and wellbeing. These are subjects which have come up regularly in questions over the past year or so as both Chambers and The Legal 500 begin to explore these issues more fully, and to champion mental health and wellbeing in the law. It’s pretty likely that in the foreseeably near future one or other of the major directories will request D&I and wellbeing information in its submission processes; some processes for certain awards and national directories already request it. If one major directory does so, the other is sure to follow suit. Your law firm might be hesitant to release such information, for fear of looking bad. But the law firms which accept they have work to do and show the improvements and efforts they are making will earn some measure of credit for doing so. I would expect a minority of law firms to provide such information in the first year it is requested, but then more to follow the next year as many law firms realise their situation is comparable with or better than some of their peer law firms. So, why not be forward-thinking to collate and voluntarily supply information on these statistics and initiatives in your next round of submissions before you’re requested to provide it? You can only affect the conversation by being in it.

Lesson 5) Trust the process. Do. Your. Job. You might not like the Pats, but you have to acknowledge (genuine) greatness when you see it. A dominant franchise and the sport’s best coach combined with its most successful quarterback* and a rolling cast of important contributors from great to small. Imitations abound. Famously working to the maxim: Do Your Job. Trusting the process – that if you do yours, your teammates will do theirs.

Translation: Directories season is a grind for each practice but it’s essential to do it right if you want results. Claims need to be substantiated and you must have fresh examples of relevant work and client referees to push the case for a practice or its lawyers. If one aspect of information or another is missing, little by little it diminishes the chances of the whole submission. Be clear and explicit about every positive, difference-making point. Advance the arguments you made last year to show progress since. If you show the researcher strong arguments and supporting evidence, then follow best practice guidelines on selecting client referees and encouraging them to reply, you can trust the directories process to achieve results for you with consistent participation.

*Note to Pats fans: I said most successful. Note to 49ers fans: I said most successful.

To put my money where my mouth is, the first US law firm wanting help drafting or editing a Chambers or Legal 500 sports law submission will get that help for free. Unless they work for the Colts.

Pretty sure peeps stopped reading a while back but, in case you’re still with me, this is the end of the article. You’ve done well. Here are some random wishes for the upcoming NFL season: Marcus Mariota plays every game. Derrick Henry plays every game. Kevin Byard plays every game. Taylor Lewan plays every game (after his suspension!). Titans win a game against the Colts (yay!). Titans go deep in the Playoffs. Browns make the Playoffs. The NFL ditches the pass interference review.

#TitanUp

About the author: my name is Mike Nash and I’m one of three specialist directories consultants at SavageNash Legal Communications, all of whom are senior former directories editors and collectively have 40 years’ experience of legal directories; two of us worked in-house in marketing & communications at international law firms. If you’d like to know more about how we could help your law firm with your directories needs, then please look around our website, use it to contact us directly or contact me via LinkedIn.

About the article: This is a SavageNash website version of an identical article uploaded simultaneously on LinkedIn.

Toothpaste and Directories

Posted on | by Mike Nash

The other day, after forgetting to buy toothpaste, I was faced with a choice of which of two second-choice toothpastes to use up since my first choice wasn’t an option! (Bear with me.) In addition to mulling the prospect of sucking it up and forcing my way through some spearmint-flavoured toothbrushing, the conundrum took me back to my first-job-after-university days researching the pharmaceuticals and personal care market (exciting times!). How Arm & Hammer came out with a new toothpaste that repaired teeth. And how its advantage was wiped out the moment the patent expired.

Since directories season never really ends, sadly this train of thought led me to the epiphany of the link between new toothpastes and legal directory rankings: if you have a new product to sell, you have a temporary advantage. And just so if your legal practice has a new story to tell but it won’t take long for that advantage to vanish.

With that in mind, and with submissions from Asia to Europe and the USA upcoming, here are some top tips on how to change up the information in order keep your next submission fresh (definitely peppermint, not spearmint fresh!):

1. If you reported on some new team hires last year, then this time round make sure to showcase how those hires have bedded in by exemplifying their new work and the transitioning of their clients into the practice.

2. By all means, do include some ongoing examples of work that were submitted last year – it’s a common and reasonable thing to do – but be sure to update the matter in order to describe the significant progress of the deal or case since last year.

3. Not all years are created equal – take a fresh look at the lawyers you want to nominate as candidates for ranking. Some members are so central to the practice that they will merit nomination every year, but there will be lawyers who had a strong year last year, unfortunately didn’t get ranked and have since had a quiet year for one reason or another; unless it’s a strategic priority to have that person nominated, this quiet year for them may well indicate that it’s time to promote the case for a different lawyer this year, i.e. a lawyer who has made an impact of their own with a strong body of industry-affecting or cutting-edge mandates. This type of consideration of year-to-year strength of case is especially important for large teams where you may have numerous lawyers who are viable candidates for recognition.

4. Last year, you may have reported on some trends affecting an industry or practice area. Maybe some of those trends never turned into work for the practice – after all, it’s the law not fortune-telling – but make sure to flag up any trends that did come to fruition by following up that line of argument and exemplifying relevant work which has resulted.

5. When submitting your referees, it’s always a good idea to review whether to change the list compared with the previous year. Some of your best clients will be happy to promote the cause year after year but this won’t be the case for every client, particularly if the lawyers haven’t done much for them in the past 12 months. Keeping an eye on this not only avoids overburdening clients with repeated requests but it helps to avoid a client’s comments becoming stale and/or a client saying they haven’t used the firm much this year, which might be an incidental slowdown in a long-term client relationship but may come across to the researcher as an implicit negative.

If you have any questions about how SavageNash could help your law firm with its directories needs, please go ahead and contact us via our website – or email me directly. We look forward to hearing from you.

Interview With Steve Naifeh, Founder, Best Lawyers

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

A long-time market leader in the somewhat crowded peer-review section of the legal directories market, Best Lawyers‘ recent tie-up with U.S. News & World Report added a significant string to the directory’s bow. Here’s what Best Lawyers founder Steve Naifeh had to say when I caught up with him earlier this week.

Steven-Naifeh-215x326

Best Lawyers is among the longest-running legal rankings publications. How – if at all – and why has the philosophy behind it changed since the early days?

“Best Lawyers has changed a lot in the past 32 years. We now have almost 50 people in two offices (South Carolina and New York), not just me in one office. We cover hundreds of legal practice areas in over 65 legal markets, not just ten practice areas in the U.S. We rank firms as well as lawyers. We have a website that reaches about a million unique visitors a month instead of a book that reached several thousand lawyers a year.

But even though a lot has changed, the philosophy hasn’t changed. At Best Lawyers, providing the most accurate possible ratings remains our core mission – even though legal rankings have become a business since we started out three decades ago and so many competitors have entered the field.”

In a market where several of the best-known directories have made client feedback a central feature of their research, how difficult has it been to resist that, and stick with peer review?

“We believe that client feedback can be extremely valuable, and we have added it to peer-review as a part of the rating process for law firms. But we know that corporate clients – and especially general counsel who deal with many different lawyers and law firms – provide more dependable opinions than individuals who are not themselves lawyers or who have not dealt with many lawyers. Individual clients tend to focus on results and personality. Sometimes the best possible lawyer can’t deliver ideal results in terrible circumstances. And however desirable a good personality may be, it is as important to have the right lawyer as it is to have the right doctor, regardless of personality.”

Best Lawyers expanded the scope of its coverage beyond the United States relatively recently to include various key international markets, including the UK and Continental Europe. How’s that going?

“We have been working since 2009 throughout Europe and in the major legal markets in Asia and Latin America, as well as in Canada and Mexico. Because our lists run in major newspapers in many of these markets, our lists have become extremely important – the most important lists even in some markets that we have entered relatively recently.”

Best Lawyers‘ tie-up in 2010 with U.S. News was one of the biggest developments in the directories market in recent times. What prompted that decision?

“U.S. News has a reputation for rankings in general, as well as a very strong platform, and is moving into many new fields beyond its obvious strengths in rating schools and hospitals. It seemed like a natural partnership to bring our new law firm rankings to the largest and most influential possible audience.”

Three editions in, how is the U.S. News-Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms” product going? Has its success in gaining traction in what is a pretty saturated market matched your expectations?

“The traction was very strong from the beginning, partly because the leaders of so many of the largest law firms in the country are on the boards of schools and hospitals that are rated by U.S. News. The traction has gotten stronger each year as lawyers and law firm leaders see how carefully we undertake the research process, how hard we work to make the process better and easier each year, and how valuable the ratings are to legal marketing.”

What plans are in the pipeline for developing Best Lawyers? Or is it a case (perfectly understandably!) of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”?

“A company can always be improved, and we are constantly thinking of ways to improve Best Lawyers. A phrase I hate hearing from anyone on our team is that “we’ve always done it this way.” Innovation and technology can improve any company, as I believe they have improved ours. It is a long time, and much has changed, since I began the first peer-review list in the legal profession 32 years ago with paper and pencil and a telephone. I am still trying to believe that imitation is the highest form of flattery. Naturally, I will certainly keep Savage Comms informed of major changes.”

Being a seasoned directories’ professional, what’s your opinion on the current state of the directories market? How do you see directories continuing to play a role going forward?

“There are too many directories and too many of them are all about making money. I am sure that the market will shake some of them out, and I believe that quality will be a factor.”