Interview With Steve Naifeh, Founder, Best Lawyers

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

Steven-Naifeh-215x326

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal 500 Takes Fresh Approach To Awards Ceremonies

The Legal 500 has announced a fresh take on the run-of-the-mill awards ceremonies, with the launch of its Legal 500 2013 Awards.

Awards ceremonies are big business in today’s legal market. But,  increasingly, they are all the same: big black tie events, where you sit at a table of  whoever the firms could persuade/bribe/beg to attend.

According to Legal 500 Publishing Director, David Burgess: “Our view is that we want to recognise the best in the business, without all the hoopla of an event to overshadow it.”

Using Legal 500‘s in-depth research as a starting point, the aim will be to judge the work of firms and barristers on the submissions they’ve already provided during the Legal 500 research process. The awards themselves will therefore follow the practice areas in the Legal 500 book, apart from the few regional/jurisdictional awards (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Offshore). The Bar awards, meanwhile, will recognise sets and QCs across the sections.

So far, so familiar, right? But, there are some crucial differences that make Legal 500‘s awards a somewhat different beast.

First, awards won’t be handed out on the night (so, no long ceremony – something I’m sure will make a lot of people very happy). Instead, firms will be presented with a trophy and logos which they can use for promoting the firm.

Secondly – and here’s the real difference – there won’t be a massive event at a London hotel for a thousand people. No big black tie event, no table sales… a departure indeed. Instead, winners will be invited to a networking dinner, with a mix of firms, sets/QCs and importantly, in-house lawyers – to deepen relationships and be allowed to properly network.

And the real difference between Legal 500‘s awards and pretty much every other awards event in the market? None of the attendees will be charged money to attend.

It’s a pretty radical approach, and it will be interesting to see whether it catches on. But however it is greeted in the market, one thing is for sure: innovation seems to be the new watchword at Legal 500. And that can only be a good thing for the market generally.

Interview: David Burgess, Publishing Director, The Legal 500

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.”

Hone Your Submissions

Of course, you know you’re great. But simply telling the directories this won’t get you anywhere – remember, hundreds of other firms and attorneys will be doing exactly the same thing. In all parts of the submission, and during the partner interview with the researcher, it’s vital to explain why. Why is this deal important? Why is our work cutting-edge? Why do we deserve to be ranked higher?

A strong, well-written submission is essential to achieving the rankings you deserve.

I have particular expertise in preparing compelling submissions for numerous international markets, across all types of law firms as well as barristers’ chambers, for all the main directories, including Chambers, Legal 500, US News-Best Law Firms, Best Lawyers, IFLR1000, Benchmark Litigation, and Managing IP.

I also have deep experience of drafting successful submissions for a multitude of awards and surveys, including for FT Innovative LawyersLegal WeekThe LawyerAmerican Lawyer, and The National Law Journal.

How I Can Help

  • Researching and drafting submissions for all key directories, awards and surveys.
  • Reviewing and editing existing submissions for format, substance, length and style.
  • Designing high-quality submission templates to improve the structure, clarity and effectiveness of submissions.

 

Managing Your Client References

So you’ve got your great submission ready to go into the directory. Well done… but that’s only half the battle.

The leading directories use client references as a key element of their research. It’s impossible to overstate the importance of this part of the process; glowing references from key clients are arguably becoming as important as providing a detailed and focused submission.

A firm won’t necessarily get ranked on the strength of client references alone – but it makes the decision not to rank a firm much harder if the researcher is faced with a list of third-party explanations of why a firm should be on the list.

But, there’s little benefit in providing clients who are unlikely to respond, or who aren’t going to give the researcher the right message. And no attorney wants to annoy their clients with endless reference requests. It’s a tricky balancing act.

How I Can Help

  • Implementation of a detailed process for guiding partners and marketing staff through the timing and strategy for bringing client references into the process.
  • Comprehensive strategic guidance regarding optimum client reference selection.
  • A detailed set of best practice materials explaining how to make sure your clients are kept in the loop throughout the directory research process, making it more likely they’ll respond.

Rankings: How Are You Really Doing?

When a leading directory releases a new set of results, firms are eager to look up their own rankings. Where did we go up? Where did we go down? And (as marketing teams are all too acutely aware) – who can we blame for any disappointments?

Of course, it’s important for firms to chart their own progress year-on-year. It’s good for both internal morale and external messaging to say “we’ve got four more practice rankings and nine more lawyers ranked than we did last year”.

But, even more compelling is for firms to chart their progress against their competitors, and benchmark their rankings accordingly. For example, your firm might not be adding rankings as quickly as the partners would like; but if your competitors’ rankings are all static or falling, you’re outperforming the market. And that‘s a message worth shouting about.

How I Can Help

  • I have devised a number of key metrics that benchmark firms’ rankings against one another, which can be used to give firms a true picture of how they’re performing in the market – both currently and historically.
  • Analysis of year-on-year progress of a firm’s own rankings, at both the practice and individual levels.

Give The Directories What They Need

Pity the poor researcher, whose job it is to wade through hundreds of submissions, all telling him or her the same thing: rank us higher! You got it wrong last year!

Their job is made so much harder by all the extraneous information firms decide to send the directories, “just in case it might help”. You might be justifiably proud of the prestigious conference you spoke at in 1998 – but the directories don’t care.

It’s essential to provide the directories with exactly what they need to make their rankings decision – nothing more, nothing less.

How I Can Help

  • A comprehensive set of best practice materials, covering all aspects of the research process.
  • Detailed strategic guidance on key parts of the process, in particular the thorny issues of client references, tips for selecting the best matters, advice for partners on how to handle research interviews, and guidance on which directories to participate with – and which to avoid.

Shout About Your Results

The amount of time and effort that goes into putting together directory submissions is enormous (and I should know!). And yet, many firms often don’t do anything with their results beyond the standard news item on their website.

I think those firms are missing a trick. It’s so important to make the amount of work your lawyers and marketers put in really pay off once the results come out, by adopting intelligent, eye-catching strategies for communicating your rankings both internally and externally.

On the other side of the coin, engaging with the directories throughout the year – rather than simply during the hard slog that is the submission process – can really pay dividends.

How I Can Help

  • Clear summaries and analysis of directory performance.
  • Innovative strategies for promoting directory and awards successes on law firms’ websites.
  • Developing a dedicated directories intranet page.
  • Representing firms in person with directory editors and researchers.
  • Keeping the directories updated with news and information throughout the year.

 

All the key directories. All the key people. In one place.

Beyond the directories’ own websites and Twitter pages, it can be tough for law firms to keep track of every development, initiative and nugget of information from the array of publications that rank lawyers and firms.

Throughout the year, the Savage Comms blog will feature regular, in-depth interviews with all the senior editorial people at all the major legal directories, as well as those at myriad other awards and rankings publications.

Here, you’ll find breaking news about current initiatives and plans for future development. You’ll find regular tips and tricks – direct from the horse’s mouth – as to how best to approach each directory’s research processes. And, you’ll hear their thoughts on the directories market in general – including how the market is developing, and why directories remain relevant in today’s legal market.

First up, watch out for my interview with Steve Naifeh, founder of Best Lawyers, coming today.

Next week: Catherine McGregor, Lawdragon‘s Chief of Strategic Development, and former Managing Editor of Chambers and Partners.

Welcome to the Savage Comms blog.

[maxbutton id=”1″]