Tag: submission strategy

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 Chambers Europe: Georgia Brooks, Editor

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

For a wealth of inside information relating to Chambers Europe, check out my interview with the Editor, Georgia Brooks. I caught up with Georgia recently to discuss changes to this year’s book, and tips for how to engage with the research process.

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?

Firstly, the 2014 Chambers Europe guide will look very different to previous editions.  We have greatly changed the editorial layout, to highlight a team’s key strengths as well as its main areas of activities.  Extended information, such as basic facts about the department and additional work highlights, will also be available on our website: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/guide/europe/7Georgia_Brooks

This year we have added an unprecedented number of new practice areas at both a country level and in the Europe-wide chapter.  Energy has been a key area of law for multiple jurisdictions, and we researched it for the first time in Belgium, Denmark, Finland and Sweden.  At a Europe-wide level we have seen an increase in internal investigations and regulatory work, so added two new sections to cover these: Corporate Investigations and Regulatory & Public Affairs.  Data Protection is another growing area of focus across Europe, and that too has been introduced in the Europe-wide section.

Lastly, we conducted more regional research and added separate Central & Eastern Europe sections in Banking & Finance, Corporate/M&A and Dispute Resolution.  We also introduced a Baltic-wide Corporate/Commercial section to highlight firms active in that region.  At a country level, we also added France Regions and Russia Regions sections; which will highlight firms who are active outside of the capital.

European 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 aspect that firms continue to get wrong, or rather miss completely, is to explain why a work highlight is important and explain the specific role the team played.  It definitely helps to summarise the matter – concisely! – and put it into context.  Also feel free to send us additional information from local news sources, where relevant.

Furthermore, a lot of firms only highlight on the top-value deals, whereas it helps to show a breadth of expertise.  It’s a good idea to explain all the strengths of the team, then use the ten work matters as an illustration.

Finally, and I cannot stress this enough, but missing the deadline is a big no-no!

What’s your advice on how firms with plenty of lawyers ranked in a section should get more lawyers on the list?

I advise taking a two-pronged approach; first, make sure that you highlight the lawyers you want to see ranked in the submission.  There is space on the submission form to include key names, and it’s also crucial that their work highlights are also listed, so we can see what work they have handled.  Secondly, put forward client referees who can talk about the team as a whole and a range of individuals.  Of course make sure that the client is happy and willing to speak to us – this makes such a difference!

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

We do have a few new faces to the team, which is natural in such a large research team. However, the greatest change has been with the deputy editors; we promoted four individuals towards the end of 2013.  All four were extremely experienced researchers, and one (Lucy Craig) was previously the assistant editor for Germany.  I’m sure many firms will recognise them from their time as researchers.  Here they are below as well as the list of jurisdictions they oversee:

Francesca Lean – France, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain
Katherine Yu – the Baltic and Nordic regions, Poland, Russia and Ukraine
Lucy Craig – Austria, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland
William Robertson – Central and South East Europe, plus Turkey.

If firms have any queries about the research it’s best to come to me and the deputy editor for the relevant country.

When recruiting, how much weight do you place on native/fluent speakers of foreign languages?

Being able to speak to clients and lawyers in their native tongue is extremely useful, and in some jurisdictions absolutely crucial!  On the current Europe team our researchers speak over ten different languages, including French, German, Portuguese, Greek, Hungarian and Russian.  Foreign languages are a very important part of the research and thus the recruiting process.

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?

For most of February and March the deputy editors, assistant editors and myself interview managing partners from firms across Europe.  It is a great time for the managing partners to tell us about key market developments as well as changes at their own firm.  We use the information we gather to better allocate our resources throughout the year, and of course pass this knowledge onto the researcher before research starts.  Thus, researchers know in advance what has been happening in the market as well as new practice areas or firms to ask about.

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

For the Europe team, the most important element in assigning researchers is language.  Thus for jurisdictions where speaking the native language is crucial, such as France, Germany, Spain, Russia, Italy, then it is obviously a good idea to have the same researcher cover the jurisdiction.  That said, a fresh pair of eyes can offer a different perspective, not to mention a different research experience.  At a deputy and editor level then we try to keep consistency, as we are the ones ultimately evaluating the research.  You will notice that the deputy editors are responsible for a region, which gives them expert knowledge of various jurisdictions as well as an understanding of how those countries often work together.

Any plans for the researchers to travel to meet with firms face-to-face? It’s something that firms appreciate in relation to at least one of your close rival publications…

I and the deputy editors frequently meet with firms when they come to London.  It is definitely useful to hold face-to-face meetings, as it enhances our knowledge of the firm and likewise allows us to explain more about the research process.  I am also quite fortunate in that I can travel to meet firms on occasion e.g. in the last year I visited firms in Turkey, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Germany and Ukraine.  As much as we would all like to be travelling across Europe, we find that we can conduct more thorough research from our base in London.  You may find that surprising but the researchers couldn’t travel with the database in tow, nor would they have the wealth of material that we have in the office.

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

For the 2015 guide we are expanding our regional coverage even further by introducing a CIS Corporate/Commercial section.  At a Europe-wide level we will research Real Estate for the first time, while in the Central & Eastern Europe section we will add Dispute Resolution.  Compliance has been the buzzword for a while now, and we are introducing the section in Germany.  The Germany chapter will also see new Commercial Contracts and Transportation sections.

Another key initiative that we are focusing on is to develop the mid-market coverage, such as Corporate/M&A sections divided into High-End Capability and Mid-Market.  This is currently in place for France and Germany, and I imagine this will only grow.  Indeed, we are seeing increased engagement from firms active at this level as well as interest from clients.

Research for the 2015 guide starts in March and the first submission deadline was 24 February.  However, we are still accepting submissions so firms should check the online schedule for further information: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/secure/research-schedule

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.

Interview with Lauren Hughes, Editor, Legal 500 US

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

Lauren Hughes took over the editorship of the Legal 500 US earlier this year, bringing with her many years’ experience as a researcher on the US and other Legal 500 editions. I caught up with Lauren to talk about her plans for the forthcoming edition of the Legal 500 US – the deadlines for which are coming up in November – and to hear about some other new initiatives at Legal 500 that will be particular interest to the US legal market.

As the new editor of Legal 500 US, are you planning any changes to the structure of the book this year? Any new practice areas the market needs to be aware of?L500 logo

It will be much the same structure as last year’s, but with two additions: Cyber Crime will be included as a section within the Media, Technology and Telecoms chapter, and Sport has been reintroduced within the Industry Focus chapter. The timings remain the same as ever; submissions are due just after Thanksgiving, and research will take place through December and January.

You have plenty of first-hand experience of reviewing submissions, having been at Legal 500 for some years now. What are some of the things that US firms continue to get wrong with their submissions?

Not tailoring submissions for the Legal 500 is the biggest mistake. Our focus is on the elite only, so firms have to demonstrate that they have a strong national practice to even be considered. So, for example, receiving four submissions for four different offices is not helpful when trying to assess the overall capabilities of a firm. Nor is receiving a list of individual lawyers followed by each of their work highlights. We are much more interested in what the group has achieved collectively.

Another mistake is to send in submissions covering multiple sections, meaning I’d have to search it to find the bit that’s relevant for me. Firms should bear in mind that we allocate different researchers to each section, so it’s much better to send us a separate document for each.

And finally, listing lots of deals and cases with too much technical detail, without including context to explain why the matter is impressive.

But I should add that on the whole, the standard of submissions from the US is usually pretty good!

One key difference between Legal 500 and Chambers is the fact that Legal 500 accepts unlimited client references. How do you manage the process of contacting them all, and any follow up that might need doing?

We have an amazing admin team here, and they pull together the vast number of client reference emails we get each year, and ensure that we are not sending multiple emails to the same person, that kind of thing. As for how on earth they manage it, who knows! But we don’t chase the referees down as we don’t want to bug them. If they want to respond, they will.

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

It goes without saying that they should ask for permission before putting their names down. But they may want to remind them again when December comes round, and at that time they will also be able to provide the name of the individual researcher who’ll be emailing them. And I always advise contacting the researcher towards the end of the research period to ask if they’ve received a sufficient number of responses.

Also references don’t strictly have to be clients, nor do they have to be the GC; it can be anybody who can provide an assessment about the practice. It’s better to choose the people who are more likely to respond.

The referee feedback is a key component of the research, but for us it’s not necessarily the be all and end all. We understand that a lack of feedback can be put down to a number of different reasons, so if it happens it doesn’t necessarily mean the firm will drop a tier. Being able to demonstrate a strong track record of work is more important.

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

I’m happy to say there are many of the same faces as before. Continuity is important to us and to the firms, and we get a lot of good feedback about that. As the company is in growth mode, it’s inevitable that there’ll be some new faces too. And there are a few members in the team who have been promoted to other positions, but they will still be around to mentor and oversee the others’ work.

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 editors will always work more closely with newer researchers. Some will be new to the US market but will have worked on our other books, as the team rotates. For those people, we will spend some time at the start of the research to go through the slightly different approach needed for the US market. Speaking more generally, new starters always get the opportunity to listen in on interviews, and take part in a number of formal training sessions too. For the first year or so, they are assigned a ‘mentor’ who sits nearby and can answer all their questions. But the training never really stops. We regularly have practice area-specific training sessions, either conducted internally or with lawyers.

I have to mention that we always welcome hearing firms’ thoughts about our researchers. Equally, our publishing director is always happy to give feedback on firms’ marketing and BD staff, so it works both ways!

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

Good idea. Definitely. As I mentioned, firms always tell us that they appreciate it as it means they don’t have to reinvent the wheel every time and can trust that person to make a well-informed assessment of the market. M&A, employment and technology are some examples of areas that have had the same researcher for many years.

A key new initiative for Legal 500 this year is the Corporate Counsel 100, which launches this weekend. Could you give us some insights into this new initiative?

The whole concept of the Legal 500 is to produce useful copy for corporate counsel, and at the moment we do that by helping them choose which law firm to instruct. But we thought, why stop at that? So the Corporate Counsel 100 is a way of letting them know what their own peers are up to, and enabling them to share ideas. When it came to selecting people for the list, law firms jumped at the chance to nominate as it’s a way for them to give something back to their clients, as opposed to asking them to provide yet another reference!

The research and writing process for this has been consuming all my time for the past while, so I hope people will enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it. I interviewed so many inspiring people and was quite blown away by some of the things they’ve achieved. It’s also been a great way for me as editor to learn more about what they want and need from their outside counsel, and about how the Legal 500 can help facilitate those needs.

We’ll be launching the list at the IBA and ACC conferences this month, and the full editorial will be available online. There are plans to replicate it in other jurisdictions, so stay tuned.

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

There are quite a few! Some are in the early stages so I won’t say too much, but we have added a new research arm to the business, who will be producing bespoke industry insight reports on request. We are also planning to do more roundtables. Then there’s the global client feedback report that’s in the works. And, the UK awards seem to be going down well over here, so perhaps we might replicate that model in the US.

Interview With Laura Mills, Chambers USA Editor

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

Chambers & Partners continues to be a dominant player in the legal directories market. Its USA edition – a jurisdiction where it had first-mover advantage almost ten years ago –  is now as woven into the fabric of the US legal market as its sister titles are elsewhere in the world. I caught up with Chambers USA Editor, Laura Mills, who took time out of the hectic USA research cycle – ongoing as we speak – to tell me about how things are going, and about some new initiatives.

We’re about halfway through the current Chambers USA research cycle. How’s it going?

Everything is going really well! Our team is great and they’re getting excellent feedback from clients and firms. Participation continues to increase, and the quality and depth of the research is better than ever.Laura_Mills

Are there any areas (regional/state-wide or practice-based) that you will be expanding in the next edition?

We already provide coverage of all 50 states, but we’d like to expand the rankings to go into more depth in states where we have a major metropolitan economic centre. Illinois and New York are both great examples – the rankings are heavily Chicago- and New York City-dominant, so we’d like to expand coverage of the rest of the state. We’ll likely start small, with a few basic tables in each, but we’d really like to give the smaller firms their time to shine and the right context in which to do it. About half the US economy is small business-driven and most of them probably aren’t looking for legal advice from Wall Street firms, so we’d like to provide recommendations for all types of clients.

We’ve also added a few technology and healthcare tables, as part of our more ‘usual’ expansion, and we’ve given REITs and FCPA tables of their own in the Nationwide chapter.

What are you seeing in terms of general improvements in the standard of submissions coming from firms?

More firms are using our template now, which has made a big difference. As I always say, the templates ask for what we do want and omit what we don’t want, so they’re great guidelines. Also, as I’ve taken the “Chambers Roadshow” (as I like to call it) around the US, I’ve been able to advise firms a lot more effectively. My deputies and I are always giving feedback from London as well, so advice like “fewer, better deal descriptions rather than many one-sentence write-ups” has really made a big difference in the kind of submissions we’re seeing, as has practical advice on how to manage assembling those referee spreadsheets.

What are the key things that firms still seem to get wrong with their submissions?

One big thing a lot of firms can improve is the quality of their work highlight write-up. I recommend two paragraphs: one to briefly describe the nuts and bolts of the deal/case (and the firm’s role in it) and one to explain what was noteworthy about the work. A lot of firms also miss out when they don’t list the name of every lawyer who’s made a meaningful contribution to the work. We’re not just ranking lead partners, so it’s really helpful for us to know who’s on the team.

On the referee side, I think some firms are still treating the client list as something that’s meant to impress in and of itself, without considering the likelihood of response. My best suggestion is to go through the list of referees and ask “Are they going to respond and are they going to provide substantive, detailed feedback about our whole team?”

And more generally, what would you say are the elements of the submission process that firms still misunderstand?

I think a lot of firms are unsure about how we assess teams and individuals relative to each other. I’d probably think of it like a salad – you want all of the pieces to come together to make one great salad, but you also want individually tasty components. You wouldn’t want to serve someone one plate of spinach, one of croutons, one of shredded carrots, and one of tomatoes, so you should combine them all in an appropriate balance. We’ll appreciate the deliciousness of the whole salad while also noting how fresh the tomatoes were and how crispy the spinach is. So make sure your submission shows the best of your individuals when looked at deal-by-deal, but also the best of the team as a whole when looked at as an entire presentation.

Chambers has been pretty vocal about the importance of covering younger attorneys. How are you planning on making sure that happens?

The first thing is by spreading the word (as I did above, thanks for the opportunity!) that firms should be including the names of younger partners and associates on the work highlights in the submissions. Most importantly, the researchers are asking clients to give us in-depth feedback about the whole team. Once we’ve gotten a client’s comments on his/her relationship partner(s), the researchers drill deeper in order to get feedback on other members of the team, emphasising the rising stars. Often what looks to be just one person’s referral turns into feedback on half a dozen people or more.

Then, if we have enough feedback, plus some good work highlights, that’s an easy way to boost the numbers of ranked individuals with no opportunity cost to the senior attorneys who are the focus of the submission.

To what extent do the Chambers USA Awards for Excellence tie in with the directory research? I’ve seen a number of instances where the obvious Band 1 firm doesn’t win a practice award, for example…

That’s a great question, and one I get a lot! The awards really focus on the performance and progress of a firm over the preceding year, and honouring those firms that have – for one reason or another – stood out. It could be the practice’s outstanding client feedback, or an impressive victory in court, or winning a coveted client. Our Band 1 firms are always doing excellent work, and indeed many of them get honoured at the awards, but we also want to recognise the firms that have made great strides, so that could mean that you see a smaller firm get nominated in recognition of a landmark win that moved it up from Band 4 to Band 3.

What’s your current view of the legal directories market generally – still flourishing, or in need of modernisation and change?

I think that the strongest directories have ridden the crest of the directory wave and things have calmed down a bit from a couple years ago. We continue to use our client-driven research to stay on top of trends in order to ensure that we’re meeting the needs of in-house counsel, which is always our priority. For us, that means that the researchers take more time on client calls to do truly investigative research, finding out exactly what the in-house folks are looking for and what the individual strengths of their lawyers are. We’re also updating our website to reflect the depth of information we have access to, making it easier for clients to find exactly what they need by way of a sophisticated filter search.

The focus on up-and-comers is also critical here; clients have been clear in their desire to see more coverage in this area, and we’ve had many of them note how pleased they are that the researchers are probing into the full team on our calls. So long as we listen to clients and cover what they need, we’ll continue to evolve and provide them with the accurate, objective assessment that they’ve come to expect from us.

Interview: David Burgess, Publishing Director, The Legal 500

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

The Legal 500 can lay claim to being among the best-established, longest-running research-based guides in the market; more than 20 years on, it remains an essential, market-leading publication in the rankings world. I caught up with Publishing Director David Burgess, who has been instrumental in successfully steering The Legal 500 through some testing market conditions over the past few years – and who remains as bullish as ever about the future.

What’s the one thing that, in your view, sets The Legal 500 apart from the other research guides in the market?

Burgess

“I’m not sure there is just one thing. But I’ll focus on something that I feel is important – the quality of the research team. Research guides should live or die by the quality and depth of their research, and to do this effectively you need to have experienced researchers who understand the market and the practice areas. It’s a widespread criticism of other guides that they employ only fresh graduates and that the researchers change every year – this is a cause of constant frustration for law firms, and I understand.

The Legal 500 research team benefits from having a wide range of experienced researchers (including former lawyers, legal journalists and research specialists) who return to their practice areas or jurisdictions year after year. It’s always interesting when I’m out meeting with firms across the world – many of the firms refer to my researchers by their first names, as they have known them for many years, but don’t know who the researchers are for the other guides.

It’s also important to note that each of the editors here also conduct research, they lead by example, and helps to give us a real understanding of the issues that affect corporate counsel.”

What are the key things firms most often get wrong in their submissions?

“The key thing to remember is that The Legal 500 focuses on the teams, rather than the individuals. That’s not to say great lawyers aren’t important, but from my many years of talking to in-house counsel, they focus on the strength of the team, from partners to associates, and assess the overall capability of the practice that they wish to instruct. There is a backlash against the numerous guides that focus on the individuals – what many in the market refer to as “vanity guides” – as there is no real editorial depth or analysis. So, for the submissions, that has to be the focus. And the tough part for firms, especially the larger firms, is to take that ego out of the equation and produce a submission that puts the team, not the individuals, forward.

Let me put it like this: firms should think of their submissions as a pitch document for a new client, highlighting the strength of the team, recent examples of work that show the unique aspects of that practice, and that it’s a team, not a series of unrelated individuals.

Another area that firms often get wrong is when talking about work, they focus on the technical details, instead of talking about why that work is representative of the practice (ie. why was it innovative? why is it market-leading?). And a long list of work is not that helpful – we understand that law firms work on many deals throughout the year, but focus on the ones that show the high-level abilities, and leave the cookie-cutter work off the submission.

Finally, firms have to be realistic about where they feel they are in the market – give us feedback on last year’s rankings, but be honest.”

How do interviews with partners affect a firm’s rankings? Can a strong partner interview tip the balance and get a firm promoted (and vice versa)?

“There are a number of factors that affect a firm’s ranking, and there is no exact science of formula. However, I would add here that there is a misconception that the research guides are ‘80% what the clients say’ – it simply isn’t true. The submissions, the client feedback, peer feedback and firm interviews are all important and go into the mix.

What I can say is that a good interview helps but doesn’t exactly tip the balance – that would be to suggest that we are influenced in the wrong way – ultimately we have to look at all the evidence, and weigh it up against the evidence from every other firm. Likewise, an interview that doesn’t go well is not going to lead us to drop a firm in the rankings.

We don’t interview every firm for every practice area. In fact, often we can see from the submission exactly what a firm has been doing, and when you couple that with experienced researchers returning to the area they covered last year, often an interview is not necessary as we have all we need. But if firms feel that in certain practice areas they haven’t told their story, or want to highlight changes that have been made (either in the team, or in the demands of clients) then they should request an interview. And on that point, I would also add: don’t sit back and wait for someone to contact you. There’s a reason we publish the researchers’ names (and contact details), and we would encourage you to contact them at the start of the research process to request your interviews!”

What’s your one golden rule for partners participating in interviews with your researchers?

“Be prepared. The worst interviews happen when partners haven’t read their own submission, or looked at last year’s editorial or rankings. And if you don’t have what you want to say prepared, then the interview will be vague and directionless. Fortunately many partners are well prepared, and the marketing and business development teams in most firms take the time to prep them the day before, and debrief them afterwards. If firms don’t do this, I would urge them to do it. And if after the interview, the firm feels that the key points may not have come across, by all means, follow up with the researcher afterwards.”

A firm is unhappy with a particular ranking. What’s the best way for them to address it with you?

“We are always happy to give feedback to firms (within confidentiality boundaries, of course) as to why we have ranked them as we have. The best way for us to deal with any questions about rankings is to keep on top of the enquiries, so we ask everyone to send an email to editorial@legal500.com, and our truly amazing admin team will make sure it gets to the right people who are able to deal with it. However, when we launch each book, we are usually inundated with enquiries, so it does take time to go through them all. So I would urge firms to be patient while we work through them all.

Some other tips: it is always better to have one person centrally at the firm that everything is sent through – what often delays us are questions that come from numerous people at the same firm (often with roughly the same questions) that take time to answer individually. It is better for us to get a central set of questions that we answer, and which can be sent round to the relevant people in the firm by that contact person. I would also suggest that firms gather their questions and send them through in one communication, rather than drip-feeding individual questions – which again, is more time-consuming and less efficient.”

The Legal 500 covers barristers as well as law firms. Are there any strategic differences in how barristers’ chambers should prepare their submissions?

“Of course, the Bar is a very different beast, and submissions for this should partly ignore my earlier comment about individuals! But the part about being realistic should also qualify, and when it comes to getting silks and juniors into the listings, think of the bigger picture. If we have previously recommended 5 juniors, and the set has 25, don’t put them all forward as leading juniors – it is unrealistic to think that they are all “leading”, and then it’s difficult to see the wood for the trees within that set.

The submissions for law firms should focus on the work over the past 12 months, but with sets, while we want to see the key work done over the past year, we also need to see long-term work. The length of time on each case is, as a rule of thumb, much longer that for solicitors, so sets need to present a full body of evidence of work carried out by its tenants.

When it comes to the silks and juniors, don’t simply copy and past what is on the website, as we’re able to see that anyway. Take a bit of time to explain the demands of clients, and put some context into the cases that have been worked on.”

Does The Legal 500 have any plans to do something similar to the Chambers Confidential initiative – that is, allow firms to buy the complete, unadulterated feedback gathered during the research process?

“A question we get asked a lot, and one we have given a lot of thought to. Ultimately, part of our research comes from the clients, and we guarantee that any feedback they give us is confidential. In order to ensure that clients wish to continue to give us feedback, we feel that selling that information back to the firms is not the right thing to do for us as a business. As I mentioned earlier, if firms want feedback as to why they are ranked where they are, then we are more than happy to provide that feedback – free of charge.”

What initiatives does The Legal 500 have in the pipeline for the coming year that you’d like to tell the world about?

“So many I hardly know where to begin! Some of our initiatives we aren’t telling the world about yet, but I’ll keep you updated when we are able to – in fact, I’ll be able to let you know next week of a new initiative we have here in the UK, so stay tuned.

Obviously the main one that we are focusing on is the Corporate Counsel 100 Series, which is being rolled out globally. The first edition is focusing on the United States. It’s interesting that so many companies are publishing endless (and often the same) lists of the best lawyers in private practice, and not focusing on what really matters – the clients. The Corporate Counsel 100 Series aims to highlight the very best in innovative in-house, and the interviews that we have conducted with the in-house nominees have been illuminating, so we can’t wait to share that with our 2.5 million in-house readership. And obviously a key element will be launching the results at the Association of Corporate Counsel annual meeting in Los Angeles, and The Economist General Counsel Summit in London in October, where we will be the only research guide attending both of these events.

We have more in-house roundtables in the pipeline, and a new bespoke research department that will be producing a major survey in the first quarter of 2014 – more details to follow.

The Legal 500 is now covering Canada, and the results will go online in early October ready for the International Bar Association (IBA) annual conference in Boston. I’ll be at all these events, so if anyone wants to meet me there, then please do drop me a line at david.burgess@legal500.com.

In November we are launching The Legal 500 Deutschland, an expanded German-language guide that will cover approximately 500 of the leading firms in Germany, primarily for the domestic market. We’ve had a dedicated team of German researchers working on that since December of last year, so finally Germany will have an independent, in-depth research guide that clients and firms can rely on.

Any and all new initiatives, I will of course let you know about for you to let your readers know about over the forthcoming months.”