Category: Industry News

Inspecting the inner workings of the Chambers submission machinery (Photo by Shane Aldendorff on Unsplash)

Changes to Chambers Submission Template (UK onwards)

Posted on | by Mike Nash

Not the most exciting title but since (a) Chambers & Partners hasn’t shouted from the rooftops about the changes and (b) these are important things for directory submission-preparers to know about, I’m shouting about it for you.

Chambers introduced a new submission template when it announced the Chambers UK schedule. The template can be found in the “Forms” section of the menu on left-side of screen here: https://chambers.com/research/submissions

At first glance, it looks like not much changed but the changes are significant.

Key changes as follows:

1) Chambers has essentially merged the old sections B10 and C2 (“what is the department known for” and “feedback on your rankings”) under the new section B10, so all your key arguments go in one place – that’s a sensible step. There’s a nominal 500-word limit, so it’s more important than ever to avoid fluff and to present concisely – even more reason to use bullet points.

2) As some SavageNash blogs had trailed earlier this year, Chambers has introduced specific segments to cover diversity & inclusion data. These are covered in sections B2-B6 in the new form. They ask explicitly for gender, minority, LGBT and disability stats (by practice, which may make it hard to get some of the requested data). Now that Chambers has broken through that wall, I would fully expect The Legal 500 to follow suit in due course.

3) Chambers has excised the old section B11 (notes on press coverage, other awards and rankings) and the old sections B8-B9 (foreign experts and foreign desks). These were largely superfluous and it makes sense to get rid.

4) The old sections B6-B7 (lawyer nominations) have been merged under what is now section B9 in the new form. This means that all nominations of ranked and unranked lawyers go together in the same section (with a Yes/No box to mark whether they are currently ranked or not).

In summary: use the new form for Chambers UK and all other guides going forward after that!

 

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; two of us also 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 use the “Contact US” section to get in touch.

 

 

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.

The Legal 500 US 2019 Launch – Changes to the feedback process and what to do if your firm isn’t ranked

Posted on | by Alex Boyes

The latest edition of The Legal 500 US is due to launch in May – the 29th, to be precise. For many of you, the release of the 2019 rankings will mark the culmination of an intensive process involving pulling together all the information necessary to make the best possible case for your firm’s ranking, and ensuring you put forward the right referees to maximise the feedback they provide on the relevant practice and its key lawyers. Seeing your firm appropriately ranked can make all the hard work and time invested in the process worthwhile; conversely, the disappointment of failing to achieve a ranking can lead to questions over whether it was all worth the effort.

Many firms will review the rankings, digest the results, and put them to one side until the research cycle rolls back around and the next submission deadlines loom. However, doing so means you are missing out on the possibility of obtaining some useful feedback direct from the editor’s mouth which can often provide some useful insight into which areas should be addressed when pulling together the next submission.

How to ask for feedback on the rankings

So, you’ve decided you want to reach out to The Legal 500 to ask for feedback on your rankings – how do you go about doing this? The Legal 500 has changed the process by which firms request feedback – instead of emailing editorial@legal500.com (which was the previous method), firms must now fill out a form which can be found at http://www.legal500.com/assets/pages/faqs. Clicking on the Rankings tab on the page will bring up a second set of options – clicking the tab titled “We are not happy with our rankings /lack of ranking, and would like information on how the rankings were calculated” will bring up a form to fill out.

Fill out the form and click the Submit Query button. Your query will then be stored in The Legal 500’s database to be addressed by the relevant editor. It’s worth bearing in mind that The Legal 500 receives a large volume of queries immediately following launch of the guide – typically queries are answered in chronological order of receipt, so it’s unlikely that you’ll hear back from the editor immediately. Don’t despair – The Legal 500 does make a point of answering all queries received. Bearing in mind the following tips will help to speed up the process and improve the quality of the feedback you receive.

Optimising your feedback request for maximum impact

As noted above, The Legal 500 receives a large volume of queries from firms. As with the submission process, being as focused as possible and clearly specifying what you are asking for feedback on and why will mean that the editor will be able to quickly ascertain why this request is being made and provide feedback that addresses that specific point. A generic email asking for feedback on all the firm’s rankings/submissions will most likely result in a perfunctory response from the editor. Here are some things to focus on when putting together your query:

1) Focus on specific practice areas– Make sure to request feedback on practice areas where you feel there is a genuine question as to the reason for the ranking/lack of inclusion. Look at the accompanying editorial for the relevant section and consider the following:

  • How does your work stack up to the work described by ranked firms? If you are working on the same matters as those listed in the editorials of firms in Tier 1, but you are in a lower Tier/haven’t been ranked, then it’s worth querying the result and asking for feedback on where your submission fell down compared to those firms.
  • Are there any quotes cited in your editorial? If the answer is no, then it’s likely that the researchers failed to receive feedback from your referees. Although referee feedback is secondary to the work evidence and track record in The Legal 500’s ranking methodology, referee feedback can tip the balance in making the case for a firm’s promotion or not, particularly where the work evidence and track records of firms are comparable.
  • How does the size of your team compare to that of ranked firms? While this is a secondary factor, this may be taken into consideration when a researcher is considering including a firm for the first time. The editorial can often provide insight into the team size of ranked firms.

2) Provide fact-based evidence to support your query– If you feel that the firm’s submission provided a strong argument for a new ranking/promotion in the rankings, then providing a fact-based analysis of the areas in the submission that support that assertion will enable the editor to review those facts and respond accordingly. Be as constructive as possible when making your case – assertions that cannot be backed up by evidence will make the case less compelling in the editor’s eyes.

3) Ask for feedback on how the firm can improve their participation in the research process– The editor will be able to provide feedback on the referee feedback response rate, as well as raise any issues as to gaps in information that could be addressed in subsequent research cycles either by honing the messaging in your submission or by ensuring you have an interview with the researcher.

Best of luck to all of you, and remember – make sure to reach out to The Legal 500 post launch to make sure you’re getting the most out of the process.

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 30 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.

The Legal 500’s Conversion Tool – What You Need To Know

Posted on | by Alex Boyes

The Legal 500 has relaunched its ConvertNow service, which was originally launched in 2018 with the aim of streamlining the submission process by enabling law firms to transfer data from a Chambers and Partners submission template into The Legal 500′s submission template. According to David Burgess, Publishing Director for The Legal 500 Series, the tool has been updated to take into account feedback in relation to the previous iteration of the tool, addressing the issues that arose for some firms when using the tool and taking into account revisions made to The Legal 500‘s submission template. Here is what we learnt from The Legal 500‘s announcement concerning ConvertNow 2.0:

ConvertNow 2.0 will transfer the bulk of data from a Chambers submission template into The Legal 500 template 

While there are some key pieces of content that is asked for in the Chambers template which The Legal 500 does not ask for (and vice versa), both templates request the same or similar information concerning the team, individuals and work highlights. According to The Legal 500‘s beta testing results, ConvertNow 2.0 will transfer 80-90% of that common information across from the Chambers template. This should result in less BD/marketing resource spent copying and pasting information between templates, meaning more time to fine-tune key messaging.

ConvertNow 2.0 will not transfer all information from a Chambers submission template 

The conversion tool will not transfer information regarding ranked or unranked lawyers across to The Legal 500‘s submission template. Both Chambers and The Legal 500 ask for information regarding lawyers that firms consider eligible for an individual ranking. The parameters of how each directory structures those rankings are quite different: Chambers features tiered rankings for lawyers, as well as rankings for up-and-coming individuals and star associates, whereas The Legal 500 breaks down its individual rankings into Leading, Next Generation and Rising Stars categories. This will mean that information regarding leading lawyers will have to be manually transferred to the relevant template.

The submission will require amendments to optimise information for Legal 500 ranking purposes 

While the tool will transfer information across, that information will still have to be amended and updated so that it covers The Legal 500‘s research requirements. This means ensuring that the information in the submission is tailored, any gaps in information are identified and addressed, and that the document is formatted to conform to the directory’s terminology. The Legal 500 produces a set of guidelines to assist firms with putting together a submission, which can be found at their website.

ConvertNow 2.0 will transfer information from The Legal 500‘s submission template to a Chambers template 

According to The Legal 500, the transfer system should work both ways, enabling firms to move information across from either directories template with minimal hassle.

Things to look out for 

Law firms looking to make use of the ConvertNow tool should beware of formatting issues which could create issues with the transfer process. The Legal 500 has identified problems with images or attachments, which will not transfer across and could hamper the conversion process. In addition, embedded hyperlinks will not transfer across. While this is a revised version of the software, you may still encounter issues with the process, so save early and save often.

Who is eligible to use ConvertNow 2.0?

The Legal 500 has made the ConvertNow tool available to law firms that have taken out a commercial profile with the company. For those firms that have a commercial profile, use of the tool will be limited to the jurisdiction for which the law firm has a profile, meaning it won’t be transferrable across all jurisdictions unless the firm’s profile covers all jurisdictions.

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 30 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.

SavageNash: The Power of Three

Posted on | by Mike Nash

Confession: Okay, the dog has nothing to do with this article but we thought it was cute.

The SavageNash legal directory double act has been in full swing for the past year or so, but it’s time to change things up!

We are delighted to announce the arrival of our third amigo: Alex Boyes, formerly Editor of The Legal 500 UK – Solicitors and Editor of The Legal 500 Asia Pacific, has joined SavageNash Legal Communications.

Alex is a meticulous editor with excellent insights into what law firms need to do to produce persuasive and compelling submissions.

He will assist in serving our existing clients in new markets and driving the growth of new business in the UK and Asia region, leveraging his deep knowledge and ties in those markets and his decade of legal directory experience. Mike Nash commented, “having worked closely with Alex for most of the past decade, I know that he brings excellence, commitment and knowledge to everything that he does and will prove to be a trusty guide to law firms seeking to navigate legal directory processes, particularly in this era of changing research methods. He’s also useful to have around when you need to know about films or restaurants!”

With three former directories editors, two of whom have also worked in marketing and business development at international law firms, you will be hard pressed to find another specialist legal directory consultancy with the same level of senior talent as Savage Nash Legal Communications. Together we have held editorships of directories covering the United States, the UK, Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, and command almost forty years of dedicated directories experience between us.

This is great news for SavageNash Legal Communications and our clients – 50% more senior level capacity – as we continue to help firms improve and streamline their legal directory efforts. Stay tuned for future updates. We’re here to help if you are looking to reassess your directory processes – please do get in touch.

 

Mike, Nigel and Alex

SavageNash Legal Communications

Please visit our website at www.savagenash.com to learn more

What’s Next For Chambers & Partners? Private Equity Fund Buys Leading Legal Directory Publisher

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

Michael Chambers, founder and owner of one of the world’s leading legal directory publishers, has exited the business, doing what many in the legal market have suspected has been on the cards for some years now.

A team from Inflexion, a London-based mid-market private equity company, has bought Chambers & Partners for an undisclosed sum. That team was led by legal technology entrepreneur Mark Wyatt, who will run the company as its CEO. Steve Halbert, the former head of UK M&A at KPMG, will be chairman of the new company.

The intention is to drive forward the digital side of the business, and to push for further global expansion.

In my view, it was only a matter of time, and I see this as an interesting move for a number of reasons.

The digital developments could be particularly exciting. At the basic level, a revamp of Chambers’ website is needed. Despite recent improvements, it’s been rudimentary (at best) for many years. I’ve lost count of the number of conversations I’ve had with legal marketers about how outdated the website looks, and how much more could be done to improve Chambers’ online presence.

Beyond that, though, I hope that Inflexion’s intended investment in technology will reach other areas of the business – the research process, most obviously.  To take two examples:

  • The use of algorithms — working alongside, rather than replacing, existing ‘human’ research — might go a long way toward making sure the rankings more accurately reflect market realities. Basing the rankings less on unscientific comparisons of ‘market feedback’, and more on which firms are actually doing the best work and getting the best results, would surely lead to better market analysis.
  • The use of technology to address the ‘time lag’ issues inherent in Chambers’ current research process would be a vast improvement. The way the process works now, by the time the rankings are published, they are based on work firms have done almost two years previously. If I had a dollar for every time a firm has complained to me that, “these rankings were accurate 4 years ago, but the market has completely changed since then”…. well, you know the rest.

At the most basic level, then, I fervently hope that any significant investments in technology will be to make sure Chambers & Partners continues to do what it’s supposed to do: publish the most accurate, up-to-date, rankings and analysis of the legal market. It would be a great shame — and a wasted opportunity — if all investments were simply to cut costs and increase profitability.

As a closing thought, I would be very interested to see whether John Pritchard, owner of Legalease (which publishes The Legal 500 — Chambers & Partners’ closest competitor/arch rival in the global legal directories market) will be following Michael Chambers’ lead in the not-too-distant future. If I were in his shoes, I’d be eyeing this latest development very carefully.

 

 

 

The Legal 500’s Way of the Future

Posted on | by Mike Nash

In case you missed it, The Legal 500’s beta test of its new submission form process is over and the process became final with the announcement of the new research guidelines for The Legal 500 Deutschland and Asia Pacific editions. Hopefully that’s “final” in a way that still leaves room for positive tweaks as it runs through the experiences of practical application.

Beta testing wasn’t smooth but the positive thing was that there was a beta test. That process – carried out during the UK edition’s submission process – enabled law firms to feed back their views and resulted in numerous positive amendments. Is this system perfected now? Honestly, no. But it’s a step in the right direction.

So, now that the format has been “finalised”, here are the key takeaways for the time being:

The magic number – The upside: Keen observers will have noted that the finalised submission form document expressly allows for up to 20 detailed work highlights. This is a major break from the past, where The Legal 500 had previously asked for 10 matters plus an appendix of brief notes on other matters. / The downside: The multitudinous boxes in the work highlight layout substantially slows down the process of recording each work highlight.

Online upload – The upside: This enables you to confirm that you’ve successfully uploaded your referees and submissions in a way that you were never quite sure about with the old manual email submission process. / The downside: A lack of layered permissions (for all the potential contributors to submissions) potentially means the document needs to be finalised offline and/or replaced in full, depending on what can be disclosed internally and to ensure that someone maintains final oversight / control of the process.

The form itself – The upside: The formatting issues have been fixed and the excess of boxed-out segments substantially reduced. For the most part, the segments come with very clear instructions. / The downside: The form remains rather too “boxy” – for example, neither law firms nor researchers need five segments and a select-from-this dropdown menu to report a single deal value where one blank space will suffice. Those excess boxes reduce efficiency for law firms faced with dozens or hundreds of these to draft. Hopefully this is something The Legal 500 will be open to looking at as this aspect costs law firms more time than it needs to.

Preparation of submissions – The submission form can be filled in online or, alternatively, a form can be downloaded for completion and circulation of drafts before being uploaded later.

Repurposing of data: A form segmented so much clearly has potential to assist with farming of data for repurposing the (publishable) material into other data-driven results or products. Going forward, that may allow for more data-driven content to accompany current editorial, allowing more of the content of a submission to be used in reflecting each ranked law firm’s achievements. It will also feed into products such as Who Represents Who.

All in all, law firms are strongly advised to familiarise themselves with the new process in advance of their next submission cycle getting underway, so as to avoid surprises. The Legal 500’s guidance on the new process can be found here: New Legal 500 Submission Process

 

Above The Law Launches Client-based Law Firm Ranking

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

U.S.-based legal news website Above The Law announced earlier this week the launch of its “Top Outside Counsel” ranking. The results of the survey – produced in conjunction with litigation finance firm Lake Whillans – can be seen here.

According to Above The Law’s stated methodology, more than 1,000 in-house lawyers, from nearly 500 companies and 50+ cities, responded to a survey providing their opinion of their companies’ outside law firms.

The Above The Law survey asked counsel two direct questions: 1) “Which law firms does your company engage for legal services?” and 2) “Please indicate the highest level legal work for which your company will engage the particular firm(s).” The survey defined the  “levels” of work along a four-point scale: (1) Cost-efficient, bulk tasks; (2) Routine matters; (3) High-value, complex matters; and (4) “Bet-the-company” matters.

Above The Law then ranked firms in two tiers, comprising the 50 firms with the highest mean ratings based on this scale. Only firms with a minimum threshold number of ratings—as adjusted for firm size—were eligible for inclusion.

So far, so good. As we all know, law firm rankings are big business, and everyone seems to be wanting a piece of the pie – with varying degrees of success.

However, I would question the usefulness of this ranking for a couple of reasons.

First, relying on client feedback to generate law firm rankings is hardly groundbreaking. Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500 have been doing just that for years, with tremendous success. So has BTI Consulting Group with its well-regarded surveys such as the “BTI Client Service A-Team” list. So in this regard, I don’t see that Above The Law’s new ranking brings anything new or innovative to what’s out there already.

Secondly – and here’s the real issue for me – in my view Above The law has massively hedged its bets by only creating two tiers, each containing 25 law firms.

Chambers and The Legal 500 continue to dominate the traditional rankings market for a number of reasons. But to my mind, a key reason for their success is that it’s tough to get ranked in the top tier. This is because, generally speaking, the tiers get shorter – more ‘elite’ – the higher up you go. In some cases, the top tier only contains one firm. Rarely are there more than five firms ranked in the top tier.

This means that for firms ranked in the top tier in Chambers or The Legal 500, there’s an immediate and powerful marketing message: “In Chambers & Partners – which relies heavily on client feedback – we are one of only three firms ranked in Band 1 for Appellate Law in the U.S.” Or even more compelling: “We are one of the top three appellate litigation firms in the U.S.”

This bolder, put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is approach that Chambers or The Legal 500 have adopted also reflects well on them: they are saying, “we’ve done extensive research and here are the small handful of firms we believe are the genuine market leaders”.

And this is where Above The Law’s rankings miss a trick, in my view. While I agree with Above The Law’s statement that, “their [in-house counsel’s] opinion is a true measure of law firm prestige”, I don’t see that a top tier containing 24 other firms is much to brag about.

Perhaps this is just a first step in Above The Law’s foray into the world of qualitative rankings, and they plan to finesse the methodology – and the results – with future efforts. Frankly, I think they need to.

The Legal 500’s New Online Submissions Process

Posted on | by Mike Nash

After pondering The Legal 500’s messages in its presentation yesterday about its plan to introduce online submissions and for the publication to move to a wholly digital platform (i.e. no more heavy books – get your editor-signed collector’s copy now!), here are key points of note and some views on the subject:

  • There will be no more print editions of The Legal 500, beginning with the online-only launch of the upcoming EMEA edition (to be published in April 2018).
    • The publisher has been moving in this direction for some time, with the launch of online-only Canada and Caribbean editions, plus last year’s launch of enhanced online content for the expanded UK edition. It saves trees, recognises that online is the main modern form of the guide’s usage, and allows very substantial print and distribution costs to be reinvested in better technology and more researchers.
  • The Legal 500 will use volunteer law firms to help beta test its online submission process during the UK research (submissions in February and March 2018). Law firms wishing to be involved in the beta test can participate with some or all of their submissions and should volunteer by email to submissions@legal500.com.
    • UK law firms not wishing to participate in the beta test may continue to submit in the usual way for this year’s UK edition.
    • Encouragingly, the beta test genuinely will be used to identify usage issues and modify either process or format to fit the way in which firms need or want to use the documents.
    • A dedicated submission form is being developed for the UK Bar, to take account of the variations of the types of information needed there.
  • After the UK beta test, the online submission process will be refined and finalised, then rolled out as a compulsory process across all The Legal 500 directories.
  • Client reference process will be essentially unchanged, except law firms will have the chance to update their lists online.
  • Law firms will be given a log-in to an online upload screen which, though the layout is different, has similar functions to the one offered by Chambers (on first view, The Legal 500 version seems to be cleaner and less fiddly).
    • All archived submissions from the firm will be available – a useful facility for firms in the event that the key point person leaves the firm and incoming staff need access to older records.
    • Staff from a law firm will be able to work on multiple documents at once under one log-in platform (probably with one password / log-in per firm), although only one person working on each document at any given time.
  • Crucially – and contrary to some rumours beginning to circulate – law firms will have the option to fill in an online submission template, or to download and complete a Word version of the online submission form, so that it can be circulated internally as with previous submissions (or Chambers submissions) and then that document uploaded. The downloadable submission form can be viewed and accessed here: https://submissions.legal500.com/wp-login.php
  • I and other invitees were given the opportunity to see and comment on the draft online submission form yesterday. The Legal 500 was receptive to suggestions and the submission form will include clear instructions on what is sought in each particular section, with some suggested modifications accepted during yesterday’s Q&A, and so further clarifications may be made following beta testing. Click-button options will allow for the clear labelling of confidential content.
  • The form has been designed – and will be modified – to minimise the hassle of translating submissions between those required by the various major directories, so should have relatively easy facility to continue to modify Chambers submissions to The Legal 500 or vice versa, for example.
  • The new form necessarily steps back from the old free-form style previously invited by The Legal 500, but will still be recognisable to law firms in terms of the information sought. The Legal 500 still wants the same information in a similar style as it previously suggested, but the format is simply regimented to fit within what are readily understandable set fields.
  • As noted in my previous post on the subject, the online submission format also will do away with the danger of submissions going astray by email and law firms will be able to go to their summary page online platform after logging in and see exactly what has been submitted or not.
    • Importantly, it will be possible to update and replace submitted materials until a certain cut-off point (likely when research begins), at which point documents will be locked in to avoid researchers inadvertently working with outdated materials.
    • Later updates, such as to reflect partner moves or deal completions late in the research process, will continue to be accepted by email.
  • The new online format will make the data immediately searchable by the researchers and editors, allowing – for example – a deal spanning four countries to be pulled up and any submissions with related material brought up and searchable.
  • The Legal 500 also envisages that the planned redevelopment of The Legal 500 website on a new platform – still in concept stage at this point – will also leverage the searchability of the online submission form to make available to website visitors some of the publishable content, such as lists of clients, experience in jurisdictions or certain industries, through a much-enhanced search function. This point has been developed and planned after extensive discussion with the GC community that forms the bulk of the product’s readership. Thus, a GC in the pharmaceuticals industry, for example, may in future be able to run a search in order to map out and identify candidate law firms with experience in pharma in CEE or Southeast Asia.

In summary, the new process inevitably will cause concerns or teething problems for some firms (dependent on their internal processes) but the good news is that there is the beta test to iron out those issues, rather than a sweeping introduction of a model that had no prior road testing. The issues that might occur do not appear to be insurmountable and there are many good reasons to support the introduction of this form. The new online submission and its downloadable cousin are very similar in spirit to the material previously requested by The Legal 500 and simply apply a set layout to that. Though some conversion will be required between submissions of one directory and another, the pain of it looks to be limited.

The potential value of the envisaged future redevelopment of the website and the use of advanced search functions for GCs to get to information that could never have been made available in the past under the physical constraints of a print format is exciting and really should help to draw out the attributes and experiences of law firms. Let’s hope that comes along in the near future.

If you would like any advice on any of the above, or any other legal directory, publishing or awards issues, please do feel free to contact me (mike@savagecomms.com) or Nigel Savage (nigel@savagecomms.com).

The Legal 500 Set to Change to Online Submission Uploads

Posted on | by Mike Nash

The Legal 500 has announced significant but sensible changes that will see it introduce online upload of submissions and referees as the basis of its submission process.

Key points are as follows:

Going forward, submissions and referee spreadsheets will be uploaded online – the move to online upload and automated filing is great news for law firms and barristers’ sets. It will improve efficiency by ensuring no submission ever goes astray and firms will immediately know whether upload has been successful. It also will make the documents more accessible for researchers to use and for publishable information to be made available to readers of the www.legal500.com website. Publishing director David Burgess announced that the content of submissions will be unchanged, so law firms should not worry about an added burden of work hours in their submission processes.

Redesigned and more accessible new website in development – the move to the digital platform for uploading research data is being made as part of a wider development process which will also see the introduction, in due course, of a more accessible and redesigned website with more coverage of what law firms and sets can do.

Law firms can get involved – to its credit, The Legal 500 will be looking to work in partnership with law firms to ensure that the new digital approach and enhanced information reflects what readers (potential clients and referral partners) need and want to see. Law firms in the UK will be invited to be a part of the beta testing during research for The Legal 500 UK 2018 (Solicitors), which has deadlines in February and March. See here: http://www.legal500.com/assets/pages/about-us/get-involved.html#deadlines

More details on the planned and proposed changes will be presented by The Legal 500 on Thursday, so stay tuned for further news.

 

IFLR1000 Expands, Adding U.S. State-wide Rankings

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

 

The next edition of legal directory IFLR1000 will feature considerably expanded coverage of the U.S. market, adding rankings and editorial in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

IFLR1000 – Euromoney Institutional Investor’s flagship legal directory, which is now in its 27th year – is unique in that it focuses its research exclusively on the corporate and finance areas. This sets it apart from, for example, the Legal 500 and Chambersguides, which cover the full range of legal services (employment, real estate, life sciences etc.)

IFLR1000‘s expanded editorial will include rankings and editorial in four core practice areas: Banking, Capital Markets, M&A, and Restructuring & Insolvency. However, the depth of the market in each state will determine which areas appear in each state – it’s unlikely that all four practice areas will be covered in all 50 states.

The state-wide rankings will sit alongside the nationwide rankings. As is the case with Chambers, firms are of course able to submit both for the state-wide sections and the nationwide sections (for the time being at least, Legal 500 prefers to adopt the nationwide-only model, and it’s working well for them).

IFLR1000‘s rankings are based on three criteria: quality and quantity of deals, peer feedback, and client feedback.

A few things firms should bear in mind when putting submissions together (this according to IFLR1000‘s press release on the expanded coverage):

  • Deals should be focused on the state in question. They should have been completed primarily by lawyers based in that state, and governed by that state’s laws.
  • Deals involving two of more states can be submitted in each individual state submission.
  • International cross-border deals should be submitted as part of the nationwide research process.
  • Firms can submit deals that have been completed, on or which they have started work on, since January 2017.

Follow these links for more information on how to take part, as well as IFLR1000‘s practice area definitions.

My Take On This

I applaud Euromoney for taking steps to expand and improve its coverage of the world’s biggest legal market. I have felt for a while now that concerted efforts by both Legal 500 and Chambers to hone their research processes and engage fully with corporate counsel have meant those two organizations have pulled far ahead of the competition, in the U.S. and elsewhere. IFLR1000 is, in my view, playing catch-up.

The rankings/legal directory space is becoming more and more crowded, and firms are increasingly reluctant – not to mention unable – to submit to everything. At SavageNash Communications, we’ve come across many large firms who are significantly cutting back on the number of rankings publications they submit to, and instead are selecting a small handful of market leaders on which to focus their efforts.

This is the challenge IFLR1000 will face.

Strong, deep research and compelling editorial coverage are absolutely essential to success of any new directory in this already overcrowded market. I sincerely hope IFLR1000 has significantly expanded its editorial team to handle the large amount of extra research this new venture will require.

As ever, please feel free to get in touch if we can help.