Category: Client references

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 US 2019 Launch – Changes to the feedback process and what to do if your firm isn’t ranked

Posted on | by Alex Boyes

The latest edition of The Legal 500 US is due to launch in May – the 29th, to be precise. For many of you, the release of the 2019 rankings will mark the culmination of an intensive process involving pulling together all the information necessary to make the best possible case for your firm’s ranking, and ensuring you put forward the right referees to maximise the feedback they provide on the relevant practice and its key lawyers. Seeing your firm appropriately ranked can make all the hard work and time invested in the process worthwhile; conversely, the disappointment of failing to achieve a ranking can lead to questions over whether it was all worth the effort.

Many firms will review the rankings, digest the results, and put them to one side until the research cycle rolls back around and the next submission deadlines loom. However, doing so means you are missing out on the possibility of obtaining some useful feedback direct from the editor’s mouth which can often provide some useful insight into which areas should be addressed when pulling together the next submission.

How to ask for feedback on the rankings

So, you’ve decided you want to reach out to The Legal 500 to ask for feedback on your rankings – how do you go about doing this? The Legal 500 has changed the process by which firms request feedback – instead of emailing editorial@legal500.com (which was the previous method), firms must now fill out a form which can be found at http://www.legal500.com/assets/pages/faqs. Clicking on the Rankings tab on the page will bring up a second set of options – clicking the tab titled “We are not happy with our rankings /lack of ranking, and would like information on how the rankings were calculated” will bring up a form to fill out.

Fill out the form and click the Submit Query button. Your query will then be stored in The Legal 500’s database to be addressed by the relevant editor. It’s worth bearing in mind that The Legal 500 receives a large volume of queries immediately following launch of the guide – typically queries are answered in chronological order of receipt, so it’s unlikely that you’ll hear back from the editor immediately. Don’t despair – The Legal 500 does make a point of answering all queries received. Bearing in mind the following tips will help to speed up the process and improve the quality of the feedback you receive.

Optimising your feedback request for maximum impact

As noted above, The Legal 500 receives a large volume of queries from firms. As with the submission process, being as focused as possible and clearly specifying what you are asking for feedback on and why will mean that the editor will be able to quickly ascertain why this request is being made and provide feedback that addresses that specific point. A generic email asking for feedback on all the firm’s rankings/submissions will most likely result in a perfunctory response from the editor. Here are some things to focus on when putting together your query:

1) Focus on specific practice areas– Make sure to request feedback on practice areas where you feel there is a genuine question as to the reason for the ranking/lack of inclusion. Look at the accompanying editorial for the relevant section and consider the following:

  • How does your work stack up to the work described by ranked firms? If you are working on the same matters as those listed in the editorials of firms in Tier 1, but you are in a lower Tier/haven’t been ranked, then it’s worth querying the result and asking for feedback on where your submission fell down compared to those firms.
  • Are there any quotes cited in your editorial? If the answer is no, then it’s likely that the researchers failed to receive feedback from your referees. Although referee feedback is secondary to the work evidence and track record in The Legal 500’s ranking methodology, referee feedback can tip the balance in making the case for a firm’s promotion or not, particularly where the work evidence and track records of firms are comparable.
  • How does the size of your team compare to that of ranked firms? While this is a secondary factor, this may be taken into consideration when a researcher is considering including a firm for the first time. The editorial can often provide insight into the team size of ranked firms.

2) Provide fact-based evidence to support your query– If you feel that the firm’s submission provided a strong argument for a new ranking/promotion in the rankings, then providing a fact-based analysis of the areas in the submission that support that assertion will enable the editor to review those facts and respond accordingly. Be as constructive as possible when making your case – assertions that cannot be backed up by evidence will make the case less compelling in the editor’s eyes.

3) Ask for feedback on how the firm can improve their participation in the research process– The editor will be able to provide feedback on the referee feedback response rate, as well as raise any issues as to gaps in information that could be addressed in subsequent research cycles either by honing the messaging in your submission or by ensuring you have an interview with the researcher.

Best of luck to all of you, and remember – make sure to reach out to The Legal 500 post launch to make sure you’re getting the most out of the process.

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.

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.

Legal 500 London research – editor insights

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

The Legal 500’s UK research process is now underway in London. We caught up with Legal 500 UK editor Alex Boyes for a quick run-down of what’s new for this year in London. Most notable among these being significantly expanded editorial coverage of all ranked firms. Alex also provides a reminder of key things firms should be doing to ensure their references respond to Legal 500’s researchers.

The Legal 500 London research is about to begin, with the regional research having concluded. Is the London content also being expanded this year, and what is the rationale behind the change?

Yes, that’s correct. This year, we’re undertaking a large-scale expansion of our UK Solicitors editorial content. The aim of this expansion is to enable researchers to utilise the significant amount of information obtained through the submission/interview process more effectively, conveying more of the key strengths of a practice and highlighting the success stories of that year.

In previous years, researchers have had to boil down sizeable chunks of data into very small editorial descriptions of firms and their practices, primarily due to the constraints of producing hard copies. In many instances, firms in the bottom tiers of our tables received no editorial at all. This will no longer be the case – all ranked firms will now receive editorial. We will still be publishing a print version this year, however our website will feature significantly expanded content, which in turn should enable our readers to make more informed buying decisions.

alexander_boyes

Are there any other significant changes to be aware of?

We’ve introduced some new sections this year, under our Risk Advisory category. Our Brexit section will highlight firms that are devising solutions to the myriad issues arising from our impending exit from the EU, whether working at a public policy level to shape the government’s strategy for Brexit, or assisting private clients with managing operational risk as a result of Brexit. Our Corporate Governance section will cover work carried out by firms that relates to the system of rules, practices and process by which a company is directed and controlled, and by which are balanced the interests of a company’s stakeholders, including its shareholders, management, consumers, suppliers, financiers, government. The section will also cover advisory work relating to UK and international governance regulations. Lastly, this area will also cover advisory work on the operations of executive boards, D&O responsibilities and shareholder relations, as well as internal investigations of wrongdoing.

We are also introducing a new TMT section for Fintech, which will cover work for start-up firms in this space, as well as advice to investors into the firms, whether through VC funds or financial institutions themselves through their incubator programmes. Work covered includes advice on corporate structuring/contractual agreements with procurers of these services, to related IP, financial services regulatory and disputes.

We know submissions are in already, but what are some of the key things law firms could and should be doing at this stage of the process, that they tend to forget?

Firstly, don’t be afraid to reach out to the researchers with updates to the submission. Keeping us up to speed on new pieces of work or noteworthy additions to the team is always helpful.

Secondly, make sure your referees are looking out for our feedback requests and responding to them. Here’s a breakdown of when we will be reaching out to your referees:

  • Referees received on or by 3rd March will be contacted via email during the week commencing 15th May 2017
  • Referees received between 4th and 17th March will be contacted via email during the week commencing 22nd May 2017

And finally, feel free to reach out to researchers to make sure they have everything they need, or if you would like to arrange an interview. The list of researchers for London can be found here.

Managing Your Client References

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

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

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

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

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

How I Can Help

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