Tag: Chambers UK

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

Don’t Howl. Listen.

Posted on | by Mike Nash

Staring at the moon. Staring at legal directory rankings. Both likely to induce involuntary howling.

But don’t. Listen instead.

Leaving aside the moon part for the astronomers out there, I’ll focus the rest of this short soliloquy on the subject of new legal directory rankings and how to approach them. It seems like a good time to do so, since Chambers & Partners launched its High Net Worth and Canada guides in the past couple of weeks (here), and The Legal 500 UK 2018 edition went live about 15 hours ago (here).

So, you’re mid mouth opening, ready to scream at the rash of results and the awareness that some folks are going to be less than best pleased. You’re attempting to get your head round the results and how it compares to last year, and related issues such as, “why don’t they show last year’s results to make my job easier?”

Bite your lip, stifle that howl, and do not – under any circumstances – look at the moon. Then take a look at the new rankings. The positions are what they are, but the rankings and the written content, in particular, can tell you a lot.

Leaving aside the obvious need for self-awareness of (a) whether you made a submission for the practice area and (b) whether key lawyers left in the lead-up to (or during) research, here are just some of the things those new results can tell you:

1) Are there any quotes cited by the directory? No? This is a decent sign that your reference outreach efforts weren’t successful. The ideal scenario is that numerous referees reply and say much the same thing, giving researchers a clear trend to follow (and then evidence). Even if responses were limited in number, there’s some value in anecdote. In either situation, researchers will quote client comments (peer comments too, in the case of Chambers). If there are no quotes, then it’s highly likely that very few or no references replied, or – at the very least – that what they said was monosyllabic and unhelpful. This gives point 1 in the list of tips for improving things during next year’s application. (Note to self: find more references to respond!)

2) Are only one or two of your lawyers mentioned? If so, it’s worth looking at whether you supplied enough references or examples of work to support the application of lawyers who were not recommended. This is especially important in the case of Chambers, where you are limited to 20 references – don’t let one star partner hog all the referees but, equally, don’t try to share 20 between 15 lawyers. A good rule of thumb is that 1 in 3 or 4 references will reply. Spam filters and busy workloads will get in the way of the rest of them. So try to have at least 3 or 4 references for each partner you really want to push for a ranking. And give the younger lawyers some airtime with some references of their own (often possible to do where they have worked for a client alongside one of the partners you are putting forward).

3) Did you work on the very same matters as the firms in Tier 1 / Band 1, but you’re in Tier 3 / Band 3? Did you actually tell the directories about those matters? And, even if you did, did you do so on a publishable basis? If not, that’s something to reconsider for next year. Researchers can only work with what is available. Matters not in the public domain can only come to their attention through conversation with the parties involved. While there is always a concern over client confidentiality (especially in some more conservative markets or practice areas), information is the currency of the directories and they need something to go in order to make a best case for your firm. The leading global directories (and the leading local ones) have reputations that are utterly reliant on how they treat confidential information. Breaches are vanishingly rare. Trust them with some of your best examples of work – fully communicating your involvement in a top case or deal, even on a confidential basis, will allow researchers to go away and cross-reference, and often validate the matter. If it can be validated, then you’ll get full credit, just like your Tier 1 / Band 1 rival did.

4) Did the writeup miss a crucial point of the practice? Check if your firm did an interview in the practice area. Was that point mentioned in the submission or the interview? In these situations, often it turns out that it wasn’t. (Note to self: point of emphasis for next year.)

5) Is the write-up bland and lacking incisive coverage of your cutting-edge case? If so, take a look if you pitched the submission at the right level. If the submission reads like an excellent lawyerly article, then it’s too high-level. Some researchers have done legal training or practised, but most have not. Pitch the practice to them in the language of what they are: intelligent layman journalists that will understand complex points when explained clearly. Help them understand how that acronym is actually the most fundamental point of law governing your firm’s practice in this area.

6) Is your firm working for the same clients and on the same matters as your higher-ranked rivals? If so, and these matters are written about in both write-ups, then that is a signal to pose the question to the directory: where did we fall short? How can we provide better evidence? Chambers and The Legal 500 both openly invite queries about the rankings, so take advantage. The answers will give you points to focus on for next year. Sometimes it might provide a useful reality check such as, “yes, you acted on that top matter but all of the Band 1 firms were doing that level of work routinely, whereas this was an exceptional matter for your firm”. In those circumstances, it helps to manage expectations and perhaps even to look at diverting resources to focus on optimising more important submissions next year.

New Practice Area – Foggy Thinking?

Posted on | by Mike Nash

Alternative title: “It’s New! Should I Be Excited?!”

Look carefully through new directory guidelines and you will often see that there’s been a change to the coverage – something changed in some way or something is being looked at for the first time, whether that’s a new jurisdiction or a new practice area.

What do you do when you see one (and after you’ve checked if your firm has such a practice)? Here’s some brief advice:
1) Ask the directory in question for a practice area definition (if none has been provided)
2) Correlate your firm’s own practice area definition to the directory’s description
3) Don’t be constrained – assume that a new practice area will be open to some modification, dependent on the research information accrued. That means you have a chance to shape the new practice area coverage – maybe there is something your firm does that is clearly relevant to the area but which is not covered by the directory’s definition
4) Check with the lawyers – ask them for an honest view of whether the practice is deep or expansive enough to compete with leading practices in the area
5) Check the other directory – if one major directory launches a new practice area, check if the other major directory already covers it, or vice versa. The directories tend to obtain similar information and while the minutiae of results may vary, typically the nature of the practices and the bulk of contenders will be similar. If there is existing coverage by one directory, it will give you a sense of the level of opposition
6) If it’s entirely new – if the practice area has not been previously covered by either major directory, it is worth making a submission in the first year because nobody knows the level of the opposition. If you can substantiate your arguments, you have a fair to good chance of a ranking and the chance to establish your track record from the very beginning of the coverage
7) Outline prior track record – consistency of practice is a key judgement, so outline your firm’s prior track record in the area, whether that’s from decades back or examples of work from the year prior to the main time period under review
8) Get an interview early – in a new practice area, the researcher will be feeling their way through the subject. Obtain an interview and get in early, so that your lawyers can help the researcher to understand the subject and to help shape their view. That allows you to help them and, in doing so, to help them see what’s good about your firm’s proposition.

Tips To Sharpen Up Your Chambers Submissions: Show, Don’t Tell

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

“We advise a range of blue-chip corporate clients on their big matters”

Good for you. But guess what? So do the other 150 firms that are trying to get ranked… way to stand out from the crowd.

Firms include the above sort of statement time and time again when drafting their submissions. I can understand why – marketing teams under time pressures to top-and-tail a practice’s work highlights with some messaging can all too easily fall into the trap of relying on generic “marketing-speak” to flesh out a submission’s content.

Unfortunately, it’s the sort of thing that falls on deaf ears at the directories. It may as well not be there at all.

It’s vital to include information in the submission that shows how your practice and your lawyers stand out from the crowd. What are you really great at? Why do clients come to you, specifically? What makes you a better draw for clients than the other firms in the market? Why is your work worthy of getting you ranked?

These are the messages that should permeate the entire submission – the Overview, the Work Highlights, and the Feedback section. Without this focus on differentiating yourself from your competitor firms, your submissions will end up sounding generic and, dare I say, just a little bit dull.

Every practice is different, and most matters will likely have their own elements that raise them above the norm. However, here are a few quick tips to think about:

The “So What?’ Test: When selecting matters, read each matter description back to yourself and apply the “so-what?” test. If you are left shrugging your shoulders and wondering what’s so special about the matter, explain what makes it interesting. If you can’t, consider whether it might not be strong enough to be included.

What Constitutes Interesting? There are too many potential criteria to list here, but for starters, consider these main ones:

  • A matter that sets a precedent, sets a template for future matters, or will be of widespread application;
  • The first time a deal has been done in a certain jurisdiction, or involving clients from a certain jurisdiction;
  • A matter that demonstrates legal innovation;
  • The first time a deal has been done in a new regulatory environment;
  • A matter that was of supreme importance to your client; and
  • A matter that reflects a notable market trend.

And, of course, don’t keep this information to yourself. Explain how the matter fits into one of the above criteria.

Be Specific in the Feedback Section: If you’re trying to break into a table, or get moved up the table, it’s not enough to say, “we should be ranked/ranked higher because we’ve been very busy handling some very important matters for some very big clients” (see my opening paragraph). It’s essential to draw specific comparisons with the firms you want to be ranked alongside. What makes you as good as them? More matters? Back it up with hard evidence (league tables, for example). The same matters? List your matters and mark which currently ranked firms appeared across the table from/alongside your firm.

Researchers are smart people, but they’re not the legal experts that your partners are. Nor are they mind-readers. Don’t just tell them them you should be ranked/ranked higher – explainto them why you should be.

Quick legal directory tips: Nigel Savage interviewed on LexBlog TV

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

I was interviewed by LexBlog TV’s Colin O’Keefe last week during the excellent LMA Annual Conference in Orlando, Florida. In this  short interview I talk about what I believe to be the essence of preparing a good legal directory submission – focus.

I’ve already been invited to speak at next year’s LMA Conference in San Diego; we’re aiming to put together a great panel covering everything you need to know about legal directories and rankings. Watch this space.

Interview with Jonathan Rubin, Editor, Chambers UK

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

The launch of the 2014 edition of Chambers UK is imminent. And before the ink has dried, results have been assessed, hands have been wrung and teeth have been gnashed, it’ll be time to start all over again with preparing submissions for the 2015 edition (isn’t life wonderful?). I caught up with Jonathan Rubin, Editor of Chambers UK, to talk about how the 2014 edition will look – and about some tips and insights into the 2015 edition.

Are you planning any changes to the structure of the book this year? Any new practice areas/changes in approach the market needs to be aware of?Jonathan_Rubin

The new 2014 guide (which launches on 30 October 2013) will have a very different feel to the 2013 version.  The first thing that you will notice with the 2014 guide is the change in editorial layout.  We have done this to allow for greater emphasis on the strengths of a particular law firm, and what it is they actually do.

Secondly, this year we have written about firms on a regional basis (while maintaining city-based rankings), while also highlighting those firms outside of London, who have a national presence in new ‘National Leaders’ tables.  This shows to clients of law firms that the best possible option for them is not necessarily based in London.  For the 2015 guide, we are looking to expand our regional coverage further, by introducing new regional tables in areas as diverse as Fraud and Asset Finance.

We will also look to continue to develop the new Hotels & Leisure and Commercial Contracts sections, featured for the first time in the forthcoming 2014 guide, and we will introduce two new sections in 2015 – Art & Cultural Property Law and POCA Work & Asset Forfeiture.

UK firms have been submitting to Chambers for more than 20 years. What are some of the things firms continue to get wrong with their submissions?

The key thing firms have to remember when drafting submissions is to know their audience.  The best submissions are those that are written in clear, plain English, and talk about how the firm adds value to the client.

Additionally, I think firms think about submissions the wrong way round.  It is a mistake to use “what are our ten best matters” as a starting point.  The best submissions are those that start by telling us the story of what it is a practice can do, and then illustrate that with the ten matters.  Rather than seeing the top ten by value, or by highest profile client, we want to see breadth of expertise and ability to provide clients with business critical advice.

Oh, and of course, always get your submissions in on time!

Chambers limits the number of client references firms can submit. What is the rationale behind that, and how should firms with plenty of lawyers ranked in a section already work within those limits to get more lawyers on the list? 

The rationale is quite simply timing and resources.  In addition to generating and following up on our own leads, we speak to literally thousands of referees put forward by firms.  We only have a finite amount of time to research every section, and we place great importance on actually speaking to referees.  We are fundamentally committed to this method, as we get far better feedback this way, particularly when it comes to finding out about the up and coming stars in the market.

One piece of advice I would give is for firms to be careful how they select their referees.  I would always advise selecting those referees who are best placed to speak about the team as a whole, and a wide range of individuals in that team.  In particular, we are always interested in hearing from clients about the junior members of the team as well as the unsung heroes, rather than the established names who everyone already knows.

What can firms do to optimize response levels from their client references, and when should those actions be taken? 

There are two things firms can do:

First, before compiling referee spreadsheets, ensure that referees are both willing and able to participate.  It is amazing how many referees get put forward that are not permitted to speak to us about their service providers, by virtue of their own company’s internal policies.

Secondly, during research, follow up with the researcher to find out when they will be contacting referees.  All initial contact with referees is by email, so remind clients that they should be expecting an email, who it is coming from and what it is.  This, we find, greatly increases the response rate.

Tell me about your research team – is it the same team as last year, or will there be any new faces?

In a team of 50 dedicated UK researchers, there are bound to be people that some of your readers have not yet dealt with.  But my deputy editors Jamie Horne, Liam Whitton and Bryony Hirsch will all be familiar names in the market.  I am also delighted to be joined by Georgina Watts, who has been promoted to deputy editor following her outstanding research on previous guides.

For any new researchers, what steps do you take before research starts to educate them a little, to make sure they are not coming to it completely cold? 

The deputies and I will be spending the period after launch (30 October) to the start of research (around February 2014), going out to the market, to find out what is going on in the market and the key areas that we should be looking at across the board.  As a result, all researchers are armed, regardless of their experience, with information directly from the market itself before they start research.  This information covers both specific issues in a given practice area and the actual activity of law firms – lawyer moves, firm mergers etc.

As well as reviewing the rankings and editorial that researchers produce, it is our responsibility as an editorial team to ensure they are adequately informed of all the issues at hand throughout research.

What are your thoughts on allocating experienced researchers to the same sections as they covered in previous years. Good idea or bad idea?

I think it is important to have consistency at the editor and deputy editor level, as we are the ones who meet with firms initially, set the tone for research and then evaluate the research.  Nonetheless, it is useful for certain practice areas to have the same researchers year on year, but I think there is also a lot to be said for a fresh pair of eyes who can look at a section differently.

Are there any other UK-focused initiatives you’re planning for the coming year?

One major initiative we are certainly focusing on this year will be to develop and implement a “No firm too small” strategy.  We recognise that not all clients are FTSE 100 companies or major global private equity funds.  In fact, the clients who perhaps find our guide the most useful are smaller, sometimes family-owned businesses, who are not sophisticated users of law firms.  Accordingly, and in recognition of this, we are introducing a number of ‘SME/Owner-Managed Businesses’ subsections to existing chapters, including Corporate/M&A, Litigation, Banking & Finance and Real Estate, to highlight the work that law firms do for these sorts of clients.