Month: March 2018

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

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

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

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

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

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

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 I’ve lost count of the number of conversations I’ve had with legal marketers about how outdated the website looks, and how much more could be done to improve Chambers’ online presence.

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

The Legal 500’s Way of the Future

Posted on | by Mike Nash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Above The Law Launches Client-based Law Firm Ranking

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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