Category: Chambers

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.

 

 

To Submit Or Not To Submit: When is the right time to push for a ranking?

Posted on | by Alex Boyes

As a certain Danish prince knows all too well, indecision can be a killer. You may feel your practice has all the ingredients for a ranking, but there might be a nagging doubt keeping you from committing those precious hours to pull together a submission. After all, there’s nothing more frustrating than putting all that time and effort into the directories submission process only to result in no ranking and much soul searching. Helpfully there is some groundwork that can be done before drafting a submission. Below are some tips to consider when mulling over whether to submit.

Reading last year’s rankings

This may seem obvious, but looking at last year’s rankings – not just at which firms/individuals were ranked, but also at what was written about the ranked firms – can be a useful starting point when assessing your practice’s prospects for a ranking. Compare and contrast your practice’s work and team with the ranked firms – does that work match up in terms of scope, scale and complexity? If the answer is yes, then it would most likely be worth submitting.

Do you regularly see ranked firms on the other side of matters? Not only is that a good indication that you should be submitting for this area, researchers will also take this into account, so make sure you’re highlighting the point in your submissions.

The definition conundrum

Figuring out what work does and doesn’t fall within the scope of the relevant practice area can be a challenging one, particularly as these can differ in some subtle and not-so-subtle ways between the various directories. Codified definitions are a helpful starting point where available (Chambers and Partners provides practice area definitions on its website here), but those are not always available or as clear as they could be. When in doubt (and where an examination of last year’s rankings as above doesn’t clarify the situation), it’s always worth reaching out to the directory directly. The relevant editor will be able to provide specific advice on what type of work should be covered in a submission and what should be omitted.

Why is it important to lock this down before you start pulling together a submission? On the practice’s side, there’s nothing more frustrating than going through the process of gathering your strongest work highlights only to be told that many of those matters don’t fall within the scope of the relevant practice area. From the perspective of the researcher, having to sift through a submission full of extraneous information can be equally irksome – researchers have to review large volumes of data in pretty tight timeframes, so providing clear, concise and relevant information will be greatly appreciated.

It’s a marathon, not a sprint – the importance of demonstrating track record

The directories place a fairly heavy emphasis on a practice’s track record, particularly when looking at possible new entrants to the rankings. That’s great if you have a well-established practice – highlighting the practice’s past work highlights will help to illustrate that track record – but what if the practice is a nascent one? You have a couple of options: wait until the practice has some time and experience under its belt before submitting, or putting in a submission straight out of the gate. The former might seem more sensible than the latter, however putting in a submission early on into the practice’s lifespan – even if the prospects of a ranking off the back of that submission might be slim – could help to lay a foundation on which to build in subsequent submissions. Researchers will take notice if you can point to past submissions as a demonstration of the practice’s growth trajectory and track record of work, so think of a submission as an investment into a future ranking in that instance.

Learning from past attempts

As strange as it may sound, one of the benefits of submitting and failing to get a ranking is the ability to ask for feedback on how your submission failed to meet the criteria for entry. This will enable you to address those points in future submissions and strengthen the prospects of attaining a ranking. The initial disappointment of failing to achieve a ranking can be mitigated by the knowledge that you have access to data that can help you refine and improve your messaging going forward.

The Legal 500 will provide detailed feedback on request while Chambers and Partners will provide limited feedback, however detailed insight can be purchased through their Chambers Unpublished product which, while expensive, can be a worthwhile investment on a selective basis. If opting to go this route, the best approach would be to target core practice areas.

Although these tips have largely focused on submissions for areas where a practice has previously not been ranked, this also applies for ranked practices that want feedback on how to improve their rankings. In addition to doing the above, reviewing what the directories wrote about your practice can provide some additional insight. Some of the things to look out for include the following: Lack of feedback (indicates that your referees were unresponsive or failed to provide substantive feedback); unimpressive work highlight information (may suggest that more work needs to be done to improve the quality/detail of the work highlights supplied in the submission); a narrow focus on one aspect of the practice (may indicate that more work needs to be done to substantiate your work highlight information with evidence).

There will always be an element of jumping into the unknown when it comes to submitting to the directories for the first time/submitting for a new practice area, but incorporating the tips above will help to manage expectations and provide the best possible case for making a submission.

My name is Alex Boyes and I am one of the directors at SavageNash Legal Communications. I’m a former editor at The Legal 500 and also worked at a large international law firm. Together, SavageNash Legal Communications has over 40 years’ directories-related experience, from both sides of the directories process. If you’d like more guidance on making submissions to Chambers or The Legal 500 in the next cycle, please do get in touch via our website or on LinkedIn.

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.

The Legal 500’s Conversion Tool – What You Need To Know

Posted on | by Alex Boyes

The Legal 500 has relaunched its ConvertNow service, which was originally launched in 2018 with the aim of streamlining the submission process by enabling law firms to transfer data from a Chambers and Partners submission template into The Legal 500′s submission template. According to David Burgess, Publishing Director for The Legal 500 Series, the tool has been updated to take into account feedback in relation to the previous iteration of the tool, addressing the issues that arose for some firms when using the tool and taking into account revisions made to The Legal 500‘s submission template. Here is what we learnt from The Legal 500‘s announcement concerning ConvertNow 2.0:

ConvertNow 2.0 will transfer the bulk of data from a Chambers submission template into The Legal 500 template 

While there are some key pieces of content that is asked for in the Chambers template which The Legal 500 does not ask for (and vice versa), both templates request the same or similar information concerning the team, individuals and work highlights. According to The Legal 500‘s beta testing results, ConvertNow 2.0 will transfer 80-90% of that common information across from the Chambers template. This should result in less BD/marketing resource spent copying and pasting information between templates, meaning more time to fine-tune key messaging.

ConvertNow 2.0 will not transfer all information from a Chambers submission template 

The conversion tool will not transfer information regarding ranked or unranked lawyers across to The Legal 500‘s submission template. Both Chambers and The Legal 500 ask for information regarding lawyers that firms consider eligible for an individual ranking. The parameters of how each directory structures those rankings are quite different: Chambers features tiered rankings for lawyers, as well as rankings for up-and-coming individuals and star associates, whereas The Legal 500 breaks down its individual rankings into Leading, Next Generation and Rising Stars categories. This will mean that information regarding leading lawyers will have to be manually transferred to the relevant template.

The submission will require amendments to optimise information for Legal 500 ranking purposes 

While the tool will transfer information across, that information will still have to be amended and updated so that it covers The Legal 500‘s research requirements. This means ensuring that the information in the submission is tailored, any gaps in information are identified and addressed, and that the document is formatted to conform to the directory’s terminology. The Legal 500 produces a set of guidelines to assist firms with putting together a submission, which can be found at their website.

ConvertNow 2.0 will transfer information from The Legal 500‘s submission template to a Chambers template 

According to The Legal 500, the transfer system should work both ways, enabling firms to move information across from either directories template with minimal hassle.

Things to look out for 

Law firms looking to make use of the ConvertNow tool should beware of formatting issues which could create issues with the transfer process. The Legal 500 has identified problems with images or attachments, which will not transfer across and could hamper the conversion process. In addition, embedded hyperlinks will not transfer across. While this is a revised version of the software, you may still encounter issues with the process, so save early and save often.

Who is eligible to use ConvertNow 2.0?

The Legal 500 has made the ConvertNow tool available to law firms that have taken out a commercial profile with the company. For those firms that have a commercial profile, use of the tool will be limited to the jurisdiction for which the law firm has a profile, meaning it won’t be transferrable across all jurisdictions unless the firm’s profile covers all jurisdictions.

My name is Alex Boyes and I am one of the directors at SavageNash Legal Communications. I’m a former editor at The Legal 500 and also worked at a large international law firm. Together, SavageNash Legal Communications has over 30 years’ directories-related experience, from both sides of the directories process. If you’d like more guidance on making submissions to Chambers or The Legal 500 in the next cycle, please do get in touch via our website.

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

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.

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.

Chambers: How To Request Adding A New Category

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

A question we’ve been asked a lot over the past few weeks is, “how do we suggest to Chambers that they should add a new ranking table in state X/practice area X?”. As Chambers USA is gearing up for its 2018 research cycle (yes, we can hear the screams of joy/pain from here), it’s a good time to lay out a few guidelines. Please get in touch if you’d like further advice – we’d love to help.

The key things when proposing new categories is that (1) you don’t appear purely self-serving, and (2) you convey how this will be a useful resource for corporate counsel (Chambers‘ primary intended readership). An expansion of those considerations is below – we’ve used a hypothetical Texas Leisure & Hospitality table as an example throughout.

Process: Send a one or two-page proposal (no more than that – as ever, the more concise the better) to the relevant Chambers editor, explaining why the addition of a new category makes sense based on the criteria below.

Timing: Ideally before the research cycle starts, so the editors have time to consider the proposal and work it into their deadlines if they decide to go ahead. Given the current USA research cycle is essentially underway, the sooner the better.

1. Why would CLIENTS find a separate table for Texas Leisure & Hospitality useful?
Note CAPS above: remember that Chambers writes predominantly for corporate counsel, not for law firms. The tables therefore need to be useful for corporate counsel first and foremost.

Things to consider might be – why do clients need specific advice in Texas Leisure & Hospitality? For example, does Texas have a distinct set of regulations surrounding the leisure & hospitality industry that make specializing in that state essential for doing deals there, as opposed to simply having a strong nationwide Leisure & Hospitality practice?

2. Is the Texas Leisure & Hospitality market big enough?
Chambers will be reluctant to add a table where the niche is so small as to be insignificant. Do you have stats that show overall year-on-year deal volumes? The type of clients doing deals in the area?

Your aim should be to show Chambers, “look, here’s this multibillion-dollar industry in this jurisdiction, deals are numerous, complex and sizeable, involving major corporates/banks, and you’re missing it”.

3. Is there a distinct and sizeable group of firms that would comprise this table?
Obviously a firm is unlikely to suggest an additional table in an area where the firm has no chance of being ranked. But Chambers will take a dim view of a firm that says, “we think you should add a new Texas Leisure & Hospitality category – oh, and by the way, we are basically the only law firm that operates in this space – we’re so great that nobody else gets a look-in”. That’s not going to get you anywhere.

You need to prove, ideally through hard evidence (league tables could be one obvious way, though there are many more), that there’s a group of firms – I’d suggest at least 5 – competing for a significant amount of high-end work, who are all known as leaders in the area among clients, who all have partner-level expertise based in that jurisdiction, who all represent major players in the market, and who all play lead roles on major matters each year.

4. Consider a joint proposal
The most effective way of not being self-serving is to do a joint proposal with other firms in the market that might have a stake in this table. Even better, team up with amenable corporate counsel who can reinforce the message to Chambers that Texas Leisure & Hospitality is a notable omission from Chambers‘ coverage that should be rectified.

If there are a couple of specialist firms who ONLY do this type of work and who are therefore missing out on the chance of a Chambers ranking altogether (because of a lack of an appropriate table), think about approaching them too. More ranked firms theoretically means more potential sales targets for Chambers, so you’re appealing to the business case too (call me cynical, but it’s still a valid consideration I think).

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 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.