Author: Mike Nash

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

Changes to Chambers Submission Template (UK onwards)

Posted on | by Mike Nash

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

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

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

Key changes as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

 

About the author: my name is Mike Nash and I’m one of three specialist directories consultants at SavageNash Legal Communications, all of whom are senior former directories editors; two of us also worked in-house in marketing & communications at international law firms. If you’d like to know more about how we could help your law firm with your directories needs, then please use the “Contact US” section to get in touch.

 

 

The NFL and Directories – The Stretch

Posted on | by Mike Nash

They say don’t combine business with pleasure. Sage advice. I’m going to ignore it.

You see, The Legal 500 EMEA deadline is here and so is the NFL Preseason. And there are only three more Sundays until the next Chambers USA and Europe deadlines. Yup, you guessed it: only three more Sundays until the NFL Regular Season.

Anyone who’s spent enough time in my company will know I’ve spent a long time working in directories and even longer loving American football. There are more links between these things than you can possibly imagine.

So, in a sequence of tenuous segues and comparators, I mash up some powerful lessons for legal directories out of the magic of the NFL. If you feel the need to look away, do so now! Law firms can end up saying the same things as other law firms, much in the way that NFL teams copy what works and often run the same offense (US spelling for this as it seems wrong to use UK spelling in this context!). So be the Ravens, not the Lions. But be Juju, not Antonio.

Bonus points if you figured out who Philip Rivers thinks is wide open in the picture above.

Lesson 1) The Longest Yard. No, not the film. I mean Kevin Dyson catching a pass from the late, lamented Steve McNair (RIP) and straining every sinew to get the ball across the line on the final play of Super Bowl XXXIV but being held one yard short by the iron grip of Mike Jones. One of the best Super Bowls ever played. And simultaneously the worst, if you’re a Titans fan. It was also the last and only time the Titans made the Big Dance. But there’s always next year. Or this year!

Translation: Don’t let last year’s ranking disappointment, erm, disappoint you. Just like an NFL team with $177 million for player salaries this year, keep trucking for the next cycle. Persistence pays off because the directories want to see consistent performance over time. Learn from the errors of last year with honest self-analysis: what’s new? What’s different? What did the directories tell us? What didn’t the directories tell us? What does the writeup reveal? Modify the messages for this year to show what you do outstandingly well, not just an everyone-says-it list of what you can do. If your client referees didn’t respond, change the list for this year and communicate to them how quick and painless it is for them but how important it is to you. Promise them a year off from being a referee if they reply!

Lesson 2) Moving on. You might be Mike McCarthy but, now that you’ve moved on, you’re still Mike McCarthy and you still need a job. When you get a job, you still won’t have Aaron Rodgers; even worse, you’ve been replaced by a young offensive mind who was such an offensive genius that it took him nigh on half a season to work out THAT DERRICK HENRY IS A BEAST and you could, you know, hand him the ball once in a while and things might go better. Life isn’t fair, Mike McCarthy. When you’re Andy Reid, meanwhile, you have a big name and an emerging superstar. But you didn’t win a Super Bowl at your last place of employment (the one which won a Super Bowl without you just after you left) and now your current team just looked like world beaters until being ground into the dust just short of the aforementioned Big Dance. So, what does this season hold for you?

Translation: It’s common for big-name lawyers and teams of lawyers to expect the directories to transpose a prior ranking of the person or practice from one law firm to another. But it doesn’t always work out that way and the benefit of the move needs to be outlined and evidenced. Here are steps you can take to improve the chances that it does: (1) make sure the move is brought to the attention of the researcher prominently, and update the researcher if the move happens during the research period; (2) substantiate the person’s move by showcasing which clients or pieces of work have moved over to the new practice – the directories want to see that the lawyer/team is still in demand and clients following is a sure sign. If the move occurred in a tricky period – just before the submission deadline or after research ended – then update the researcher as you go along. A deadline that is in September, for example, might not finish research until 1-3 months later, so use that period to gather some new work highlights for the new arrival and provide them to the researcher during the research period. (3) Make sure to provide client referees to support the lawyer or team. Lastly, (4) be patient. If the move happened soon before research, then it might take a year for enough clients to move across for you to be able to make the convincing argument for the team or lawyer to be ranked higher. If, like Andy Reid, you have a rising star in your team (of counsel, senior associate, young partner), make sure to flag it up to the directories and substantiate their case for recognition. This is going to help the individual but it’s also going to help show the team’s depth of talent. Let’s assume you can’t put them on an NFL field for a critical no-look pass, so let’s just settle for evidencing the work they’ve been involved in and making sure some of the client referees can speak about them.

Lesson 3) The Stretch. Stretching is important. Keeps those hamstrings loose. Winning down the stretch is important, otherwise your 6-2 start turns into a 9-7 limp backwards into the Playoffs and a first-round loss. Jeff Fisher is Bill Belichick is a stretch. Tom Brady* is the most successful quarterback in NFL history. Blake Bortles is not. To take the decision to pay Blake Bortles vast sums in an effort to persuade yourselves and the public that he will lead the path to greatness would be a stretch. Oh. Wait. You did what?

Translation: Don’t pad the unpaddable. I’m talking arguments in favour of a law firm’s practice here, not shoulder pads. It is an unadorned truth that most good to excellent law firm practices in any area of the law could (and usually do) say in their directory submissions that they can do everything. The issue is that any researcher will be presented with anything from high dozens to 150 submissions saying much the same during one reporting period (across one jurisdiction or multiple practice areas), thus said similar messages from many sources blur into one. So, dial in on what the practice has done exceptionally well (a) traditionally and (b) recently and make those the focus. Aside from a brief acknowledgement of the practice’s comprehensive scope, focus opening arguments on the points of difference. When set against a field of a dozen or so law firms with similar scope and presenting high-calibre work, it’s the sophisticated, difficult, innovative and/or just downright biggest ever which make the difference. Placement of the most impactful (precedent-setting or first of a kind / largest) deals and cases high up the running order is a crucial part of that because researchers wade through thousands of examples of work. State the difference-making nature of the matter explicitly, rather than leaving it implicit on the assumption that it speaks for itself. Often, it doesn’t.

*Note to Pats fans: I said most successful. Note to 49ers fans: I said most successful.

Lesson 4) Ringing the Bell. The NFL has come a long way in terms of health safeguards since the issue of concussion arose. Many other sports have now followed suit with concussion protocol tests for players suspected of being injured in this way. Helmets are more loose-fitting. Team-mates and opponents no longer “ring the bell”. Certain types of tackles and techniques have been outlawed from the game or become obsolete. The demise of the XFL rather proved that spear tackles are gone for good. After one of the biggest crises the game has endured, the NFL has been upfront about how it is working to make things better.

Translation: In the same forward-looking spirit, it is worth considering your law firm’s statistics and initiatives for diversity, inclusion and wellbeing. These are subjects which have come up regularly in questions over the past year or so as both Chambers and The Legal 500 begin to explore these issues more fully, and to champion mental health and wellbeing in the law. It’s pretty likely that in the foreseeably near future one or other of the major directories will request D&I and wellbeing information in its submission processes; some processes for certain awards and national directories already request it. If one major directory does so, the other is sure to follow suit. Your law firm might be hesitant to release such information, for fear of looking bad. But the law firms which accept they have work to do and show the improvements and efforts they are making will earn some measure of credit for doing so. I would expect a minority of law firms to provide such information in the first year it is requested, but then more to follow the next year as many law firms realise their situation is comparable with or better than some of their peer law firms. So, why not be forward-thinking to collate and voluntarily supply information on these statistics and initiatives in your next round of submissions before you’re requested to provide it? You can only affect the conversation by being in it.

Lesson 5) Trust the process. Do. Your. Job. You might not like the Pats, but you have to acknowledge (genuine) greatness when you see it. A dominant franchise and the sport’s best coach combined with its most successful quarterback* and a rolling cast of important contributors from great to small. Imitations abound. Famously working to the maxim: Do Your Job. Trusting the process – that if you do yours, your teammates will do theirs.

Translation: Directories season is a grind for each practice but it’s essential to do it right if you want results. Claims need to be substantiated and you must have fresh examples of relevant work and client referees to push the case for a practice or its lawyers. If one aspect of information or another is missing, little by little it diminishes the chances of the whole submission. Be clear and explicit about every positive, difference-making point. Advance the arguments you made last year to show progress since. If you show the researcher strong arguments and supporting evidence, then follow best practice guidelines on selecting client referees and encouraging them to reply, you can trust the directories process to achieve results for you with consistent participation.

*Note to Pats fans: I said most successful. Note to 49ers fans: I said most successful.

To put my money where my mouth is, the first US law firm wanting help drafting or editing a Chambers or Legal 500 sports law submission will get that help for free. Unless they work for the Colts.

Pretty sure peeps stopped reading a while back but, in case you’re still with me, this is the end of the article. You’ve done well. Here are some random wishes for the upcoming NFL season: Marcus Mariota plays every game. Derrick Henry plays every game. Kevin Byard plays every game. Taylor Lewan plays every game (after his suspension!). Titans win a game against the Colts (yay!). Titans go deep in the Playoffs. Browns make the Playoffs. The NFL ditches the pass interference review.

#TitanUp

About the author: my name is Mike Nash and I’m one of three specialist directories consultants at SavageNash Legal Communications, all of whom are senior former directories editors and collectively have 40 years’ experience of legal directories; two of us worked in-house in marketing & communications at international law firms. If you’d like to know more about how we could help your law firm with your directories needs, then please look around our website, use it to contact us directly or contact me via LinkedIn.

About the article: This is a SavageNash website version of an identical article uploaded simultaneously on LinkedIn.

Toothpaste and Directories

Posted on | by Mike Nash

The other day, after forgetting to buy toothpaste, I was faced with a choice of which of two second-choice toothpastes to use up since my first choice wasn’t an option! (Bear with me.) In addition to mulling the prospect of sucking it up and forcing my way through some spearmint-flavoured toothbrushing, the conundrum took me back to my first-job-after-university days researching the pharmaceuticals and personal care market (exciting times!). How Arm & Hammer came out with a new toothpaste that repaired teeth. And how its advantage was wiped out the moment the patent expired.

Since directories season never really ends, sadly this train of thought led me to the epiphany of the link between new toothpastes and legal directory rankings: if you have a new product to sell, you have a temporary advantage. And just so if your legal practice has a new story to tell but it won’t take long for that advantage to vanish.

With that in mind, and with submissions from Asia to Europe and the USA upcoming, here are some top tips on how to change up the information in order keep your next submission fresh (definitely peppermint, not spearmint fresh!):

1. If you reported on some new team hires last year, then this time round make sure to showcase how those hires have bedded in by exemplifying their new work and the transitioning of their clients into the practice.

2. By all means, do include some ongoing examples of work that were submitted last year – it’s a common and reasonable thing to do – but be sure to update the matter in order to describe the significant progress of the deal or case since last year.

3. Not all years are created equal – take a fresh look at the lawyers you want to nominate as candidates for ranking. Some members are so central to the practice that they will merit nomination every year, but there will be lawyers who had a strong year last year, unfortunately didn’t get ranked and have since had a quiet year for one reason or another; unless it’s a strategic priority to have that person nominated, this quiet year for them may well indicate that it’s time to promote the case for a different lawyer this year, i.e. a lawyer who has made an impact of their own with a strong body of industry-affecting or cutting-edge mandates. This type of consideration of year-to-year strength of case is especially important for large teams where you may have numerous lawyers who are viable candidates for recognition.

4. Last year, you may have reported on some trends affecting an industry or practice area. Maybe some of those trends never turned into work for the practice – after all, it’s the law not fortune-telling – but make sure to flag up any trends that did come to fruition by following up that line of argument and exemplifying relevant work which has resulted.

5. When submitting your referees, it’s always a good idea to review whether to change the list compared with the previous year. Some of your best clients will be happy to promote the cause year after year but this won’t be the case for every client, particularly if the lawyers haven’t done much for them in the past 12 months. Keeping an eye on this not only avoids overburdening clients with repeated requests but it helps to avoid a client’s comments becoming stale and/or a client saying they haven’t used the firm much this year, which might be an incidental slowdown in a long-term client relationship but may come across to the researcher as an implicit negative.

If you have any questions about how SavageNash could help your law firm with its directories needs, please go ahead and contact us via our website – or email me directly. We look forward to hearing from you.

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

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

 

The Legal 500’s New Online Submissions Process

Posted on | by Mike Nash

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

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

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

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

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

The Legal 500 Set to Change to Online Submission Uploads

Posted on | by Mike Nash

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

Key points are as follows:

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

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

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

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

 

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.

Is Your Firm Sailing To New Horizons?

Posted on | by Mike Nash

Back in 2012, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP was going bust, just as The Legal 500 EMEA was being dragged over the finishing line by an exhausted editor. In 2017, Dewey is no more but the directories cycle rumbles on. What has this got to do with mergers or new horizons, you ask? Well, more of that later.

Mergers can create an information overload for law firm communication departments and an information black hole for legal directories.

As the partners pick through potential conflicts and move on to exciting new horizons and enhanced prospects, the comms team works away to make sure clients and the wider world know about the synergies, all the while wondering whether they still have a job and who reports to whom now, anyway?

Though it’s a way down the to-do list, someone usually tells the legal directories. (But not always.) Directories might research a topic once a year, but it’s a year-round tool for the millions of readers who use them. And if you tell the directories the details, they will update the online versions – your insights make those updates more accurate.

With 2017 already having seen its share of sizeable mergers and with more combinations in the offing, it’s pertinent to look at the subject again and see what advice might be given. Which brings us back round to Dewey.

For the directory editor (me), the Dewey situation meant marshalling of researchers (what’s happened to Dewey in your practice area and where have the lawyers gone?) and copious scanning of scant newsbites and cross-referencing of available information. Most of the Dewey BD and comms people hadn’t been told much and many already didn’t have their jobs any more.

One international law firm picked up a large number of Dewey’s lawyers internationally (notably in central and eastern Europe) and did a sterling job of keeping us in the loop. It made the information black hole navigable, the time management possible (we know this is happening, we know when, we can’t say it yet but at least we know when we will be able to do so and thus whether we can process a change prior to publication or not) and it allowed us to communicate to the world accurate and up-to-date data on what the post-Dewey world looked like in numerous markets and practice areas.

Law firm mergers are similarly complicated things and there are many learnings to be had from the ongoing communications throughout the Dewey debacle. So, if you are in law firm BD or comms and have a merger – or team move – upcoming, here are some points which may be worth bearing in mind:

  • The directories are happy to provide factual updates when old information becomes out of date, so take advantage and get the merger reflected at the earliest opportunity.
  • Don’t leave the directories to find it out for themselves as it happens or, worse, 3 months later. A big international merger may come to their attention, but a smaller local combination (or a team move) might not.
  • Tell them ahead of time. Unless you’re lucky enough to time your merger to occur during a directory research process (in which case you can fully brief the researcher as it happens), the researcher will have moved on to other subject matter and might not be looking out for the merger that is underway. Communicate to them what is going to happen at what stage, so that the directory can reflect as accurately as possible the nature of the newly merged entity when the guide publishes and then make pertinent updates post-publication, as necessary.
  • The devil is in the detail – you need not do much, but what you do and how you do it can be immensely helpful to the directories and allow updates to be processed more efficiently and quickly. So, don’t tell them “we’re law firm A merging with law firm B” or just forward a press release in the hope that the researcher looks at it. Instead, give them details: when does the merger become effective? What is the formal new name of the firm? Which practice areas are being significantly augmented with additions? Where does the merger give you real strength in an area in which, before, you didn’t really have a team?
  • Lay the ground work with the editor for a full, close review of the case next time around. What does the merger do in each practice area? Which partners are coming in? Can you confirm if any of the clients have already confirmed they are coming over with the move? How many lawyers does this really give you in each practice area and how does this compare to the firms ranked higher than you? This allows the editor to brief the researcher to make a specific point of looking closely at this merger and what it means, even before the next research gets underway.
  • A merger might not directly impact a practice area, so the researchers will be looking to find out what difference has been made. In the event that the merger has made a difference to the dynamic of the practice, substantiate the point with evidence (e.g. new office in certain jurisdiction, two new clients from said jurisdiction as a result).

When communicated effectively, all of these relatively simple points can make a real difference in helping to persuade the directory of a need for a real re-evaluation of the merged firms rankings, rather than a broad-based assumption that might not fully do justice to the merged entity.

What’s New for The Legal 500 US 2018 Research

Posted on | by Mike Nash

With The Legal 500 having just announced its new guidelines and deadlines for the next round of US research, I reached out to US editor Seth Singh Jennings for a rundown and explanation of what is new for the upcoming guide. Before we get to that, here are the basics of the research period:

  • Referee spreadsheet deadlines: November 8 or 15, 2017, depending on the practice area
  • Editorial submission deadline: November 8 or 15, 2017, again depending on the practice area
  • Law firm interview period begins: December 4, 2017
  • Contacting of referees: during January 2018 (precise date to be determined by number of referees received to contact); law firms will be informed one week before referees are contacted
  • November 8 deadlines: sections within the following chapters: Dispute Resolution; Government; Intellectual property; Labor and employment; M&A/corporate and commercial; and Real estate
  • November 15 deadlines: sections within the following chapters: Antitrust; Finance; Industry focus; Investment fund formation and management; Media, technology and telecoms; and Tax
  • Publication of The Legal 500 US 2018 edition: May/June 2018 (precise date not yet specified)

When looking through directory guidelines, it’s always important to look for what’s new – not just assume what you can expect to find. Miss something new and you might be off-target with some of your information or, worse, fail to submit for a newly covered practice area in which you are hands down the best. As indicated by the guidelines, you will find there are a number of new practice areas, or at least amendments to the ways in which existing ones are being covered.

The changes make good sense and here’s the reasoning from the editor (Seth):

The explanation for the changes is fairly simple in each case. For Antitrust: Civil litigation/class actions, we found that we were trying to compare firms doing quite different things, so we’ve separated it out. Of note, we expect it will give greater prominence to the plaintiff firms in particular.

For Corporate investigations, it was a similar thing – we were comparing firms that represent individuals (in cases which often go to trial) with firms representing corporate clients in investigations (much of which is confidential). We thought it made sense to separate this out, given that we have resources to do so.

With Structured finance, it’s always been the case that the field of derivatives and structured products is quite different to securitization, with firms typically having distinct practices. Individuals rarely do both aspects.

With Transport, the issue we faced last year was how to compare firms with submissions weighted heavily towards aviation litigation against firms doing strictly aircraft asset finance. Again, it felt like comparing apples and oranges to some extent. Since the Asset finance category was largely composed of transport finance anyway, we decided to make Transport finance a distinct section and then spin out the litigation and regulation pieces too. When it all comes back, we’ll see what we have. I certainly expect the finance sections to stay separate, but we might amalgamate the regulation and litigation if those seem to overlap quite heavily.

So, there you have the reasoning. Now, as a person handling submissions for your law firm, what can you actively do with that and what does it mean for you? Well, these changes should be welcomed. They mean more practice areas, but they don’t really mean more work for you at the marketing end – it means you and the directory using the same information in a different way. With practice areas being subdivided like this, it really benefits specialized teams that hitherto were competing with moderate success against full-service practices by making it easier for the researcher to give full credit for niche expertise when balanced against broader-based practices. For truly comprehensive practices, it means two rankings instead of one!

Another benefit to be had from the changes is that it allows you to showcase more of the examples of work which you have to put forward. Take the Securitization section, for example – before, these pieces of work would have been competing for air with derivatives and other structured products. Now you can communicate 10 examples in each of the areas, so bear this in mind when refreshing last year’s submissions with new content.

Lastly, it’s also worth taking a view as to how each of these changes compares with the similar categories used in Chambers & Partners. Some of the changes will mean that some information which would have been relevant before in submissions to both Chambers and The Legal 500 might now have to be re-housed elsewhere in order for it to get in front of the eyes of the right researcher.

Nonetheless, overall these changes will require small changes in approach and allow your firm to present more of the great info that you’ve managed to gather throughout the past year.

As with any change made by the directories, these will have come about through a combination of market feedback, requests from readers and the observations of the editors and research teams. The directories are open to change where it is merited, so do feel like you can push for change – at any point in the year – by making a reasoned case to the editor, either through the submission or by a discrete conversation at some other point in the year. Having very recently been an editor in just such a capacity, I know that those thoughts and suggestions are genuinely welcome.