Category: Legal 500

The Legal 500 US 2020 – An interview with US Editors Ian Deering and Helen Donegan

Posted on | by Alex Boyes

2019 has seen several interesting developments to The Legal 500’s US guide. Following former US Editor Seth Singh Jennings’s move to pastures new, Senior Researcher Ian Deering was appointed joint US Editor alongside Helen Donegan, who joined The Legal 500 in 2019 and has more than a decade of experience in legal publishing. I sat down with Helen and Ian ahead of the publication of the 2020 US research guidelines (now available here) to discuss their aims and objectives for the US guide over the next 12 months and beyond – here are some key takeaways from that discussion.

On the Editors’ respective remits

Having two editors on one guide is a novel approach for The Legal 500, which has historically had one Editor in charge of the guide per jurisdiction.

Ian’s focus will be on the rankings and editorial content produced in the US guide itself, while Helen’s remit will be on creating new, US-focused content across The Legal 500’s other content platforms and products, including their GCand fivehundredmagazines.

Given the all-encompassing nature of The Legal 500 US guide, separating out the roles of overseeing the research into and production of the US rankings and editorial, and that of generating new editorial content for The Legal 500’s various other publications and initiatives, will enable the editorial team to maintain the high quality of the core US guide while also giving them the opportunity to expand the scope of their coverage into areas that would not necessarily fit within the guide’s methodology and remit.

On the topics the new content will be covering

Helen is looking at a number of topics to cover in the coming months, largely driven by discussions with law firms in the US as well as feedback from the GC community – these include areas such as legal tech and leadership, although a key priority will be diversity and inclusion (D&I). Given the increasing role that D&I is playing in client purchasing decisions, the directories have been exploring ways to showcase firms with strong D&I initiatives and stories to tell. Given the relatively structured approach to researching the US rankings and editorial for the guide, providing a specific platform to showcase D&I and other developing areas of legal business will give the editorial team space to do deep dives into these areas.

The work being done to showcase the US legal market’s approach to D&I will form part of a broader approach to D&I across the jurisdictions covered by The Legal 500.

On US law firms’ response to the new initiatives

While US law firms have primarily engaged with The Legal 500 through the guide, the response to the new editorial initiatives has been positive. The proliferation of “pay-to-play” operators has made the US legal market decidedly wary of new products from new market entrants, so an established player like The Legal 500 seeking to drive engagement through free content is a welcome breath of fresh air.

Helen emphasised the importance of dialogue with US law firms and the GC community, and encourages firms to get in touch to discuss how they can take part in these new editorial initiatives.

On the upcoming US research

In addition to the new editorial content, we also discussed plans for the rankings and accompanying editorial. If you’ve pored over the recently released submission guidelines, you’ll see that The Legal 500 will not be introducing any new practice areas. However the team has introduced practice area definitions this year, the first time The Legal 500 has done so for any of its guides.

These definitions (which are available to review in the “Practice Areas” section on The Legal 500’s US submissions page) will provide valuable guidance to firms submitting this year (if you’re weighing the pros and cons of submitting this year, this article might help), Ian was keen to stress that these guidelines are open to change, and encouraged firms to get in touch with any feedback on how these definitions could be updated.

We also discussed planned changes to the format of the guide’s editorial coverage. Editorial paragraphs will have separate sections focusing on the practice, key clients, work and individuals – long-time devotees of The Legal 500 may recall the first US guides adopted a similar structure. The new format will enable the editorial team to utilise more of the information provided by firms in their submissions.

On Ian and Helen’s US travel plans

As part of their ongoing engagement with the US legal market, Ian and Helen will be travelling extensively as part of their respective roles. Having recently returned from trips to New York and Washington DC, Ian will be jetting off to visit firms in San Francisco, and also plans to travel to Chicago and Texas in the coming months. Helen will be visiting New York in September. If you are interested in meeting them while they’re doing the rounds, do get in touch with them to set up a meeting. Here are their contact details:

Ian Deering – E-mail: ian.deering@legal500.com Tel: +44 (0)207 031 0014

Helen Donegan – E-mail: Helen.Donegan@legal500.com Tel: +44 (0)20 7070 0403.

If you have any questions about the upcoming US research and the new editorial initiatives discussed here, Helen and Ian would be delighted to hear from you.

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.

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 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 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.

The Legal 500’s New Online Submissions Process

Posted on | by Mike Nash

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

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

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

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

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

The Legal 500 Set to Change to Online Submission Uploads

Posted on | by Mike Nash

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

Key points are as follows:

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

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

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

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

 

Don’t Howl. Listen.

Posted on | by Mike Nash

Staring at the moon. Staring at legal directory rankings. Both likely to induce involuntary howling.

But don’t. Listen instead.

Leaving aside the moon part for the astronomers out there, I’ll focus the rest of this short soliloquy on the subject of new legal directory rankings and how to approach them. It seems like a good time to do so, since Chambers & Partners launched its High Net Worth and Canada guides in the past couple of weeks (here), and The Legal 500 UK 2018 edition went live about 15 hours ago (here).

So, you’re mid mouth opening, ready to scream at the rash of results and the awareness that some folks are going to be less than best pleased. You’re attempting to get your head round the results and how it compares to last year, and related issues such as, “why don’t they show last year’s results to make my job easier?”

Bite your lip, stifle that howl, and do not – under any circumstances – look at the moon. Then take a look at the new rankings. The positions are what they are, but the rankings and the written content, in particular, can tell you a lot.

Leaving aside the obvious need for self-awareness of (a) whether you made a submission for the practice area and (b) whether key lawyers left in the lead-up to (or during) research, here are just some of the things those new results can tell you:

1) Are there any quotes cited by the directory? No? This is a decent sign that your reference outreach efforts weren’t successful. The ideal scenario is that numerous referees reply and say much the same thing, giving researchers a clear trend to follow (and then evidence). Even if responses were limited in number, there’s some value in anecdote. In either situation, researchers will quote client comments (peer comments too, in the case of Chambers). If there are no quotes, then it’s highly likely that very few or no references replied, or – at the very least – that what they said was monosyllabic and unhelpful. This gives point 1 in the list of tips for improving things during next year’s application. (Note to self: find more references to respond!)

2) Are only one or two of your lawyers mentioned? If so, it’s worth looking at whether you supplied enough references or examples of work to support the application of lawyers who were not recommended. This is especially important in the case of Chambers, where you are limited to 20 references – don’t let one star partner hog all the referees but, equally, don’t try to share 20 between 15 lawyers. A good rule of thumb is that 1 in 3 or 4 references will reply. Spam filters and busy workloads will get in the way of the rest of them. So try to have at least 3 or 4 references for each partner you really want to push for a ranking. And give the younger lawyers some airtime with some references of their own (often possible to do where they have worked for a client alongside one of the partners you are putting forward).

3) Did you work on the very same matters as the firms in Tier 1 / Band 1, but you’re in Tier 3 / Band 3? Did you actually tell the directories about those matters? And, even if you did, did you do so on a publishable basis? If not, that’s something to reconsider for next year. Researchers can only work with what is available. Matters not in the public domain can only come to their attention through conversation with the parties involved. While there is always a concern over client confidentiality (especially in some more conservative markets or practice areas), information is the currency of the directories and they need something to go in order to make a best case for your firm. The leading global directories (and the leading local ones) have reputations that are utterly reliant on how they treat confidential information. Breaches are vanishingly rare. Trust them with some of your best examples of work – fully communicating your involvement in a top case or deal, even on a confidential basis, will allow researchers to go away and cross-reference, and often validate the matter. If it can be validated, then you’ll get full credit, just like your Tier 1 / Band 1 rival did.

4) Did the writeup miss a crucial point of the practice? Check if your firm did an interview in the practice area. Was that point mentioned in the submission or the interview? In these situations, often it turns out that it wasn’t. (Note to self: point of emphasis for next year.)

5) Is the write-up bland and lacking incisive coverage of your cutting-edge case? If so, take a look if you pitched the submission at the right level. If the submission reads like an excellent lawyerly article, then it’s too high-level. Some researchers have done legal training or practised, but most have not. Pitch the practice to them in the language of what they are: intelligent layman journalists that will understand complex points when explained clearly. Help them understand how that acronym is actually the most fundamental point of law governing your firm’s practice in this area.

6) Is your firm working for the same clients and on the same matters as your higher-ranked rivals? If so, and these matters are written about in both write-ups, then that is a signal to pose the question to the directory: where did we fall short? How can we provide better evidence? Chambers and The Legal 500 both openly invite queries about the rankings, so take advantage. The answers will give you points to focus on for next year. Sometimes it might provide a useful reality check such as, “yes, you acted on that top matter but all of the Band 1 firms were doing that level of work routinely, whereas this was an exceptional matter for your firm”. In those circumstances, it helps to manage expectations and perhaps even to look at diverting resources to focus on optimising more important submissions next year.

New Practice Area – Foggy Thinking?

Posted on | by Mike Nash

Alternative title: “It’s New! Should I Be Excited?!”

Look carefully through new directory guidelines and you will often see that there’s been a change to the coverage – something changed in some way or something is being looked at for the first time, whether that’s a new jurisdiction or a new practice area.

What do you do when you see one (and after you’ve checked if your firm has such a practice)? Here’s some brief advice:
1) Ask the directory in question for a practice area definition (if none has been provided)
2) Correlate your firm’s own practice area definition to the directory’s description
3) Don’t be constrained – assume that a new practice area will be open to some modification, dependent on the research information accrued. That means you have a chance to shape the new practice area coverage – maybe there is something your firm does that is clearly relevant to the area but which is not covered by the directory’s definition
4) Check with the lawyers – ask them for an honest view of whether the practice is deep or expansive enough to compete with leading practices in the area
5) Check the other directory – if one major directory launches a new practice area, check if the other major directory already covers it, or vice versa. The directories tend to obtain similar information and while the minutiae of results may vary, typically the nature of the practices and the bulk of contenders will be similar. If there is existing coverage by one directory, it will give you a sense of the level of opposition
6) If it’s entirely new – if the practice area has not been previously covered by either major directory, it is worth making a submission in the first year because nobody knows the level of the opposition. If you can substantiate your arguments, you have a fair to good chance of a ranking and the chance to establish your track record from the very beginning of the coverage
7) Outline prior track record – consistency of practice is a key judgement, so outline your firm’s prior track record in the area, whether that’s from decades back or examples of work from the year prior to the main time period under review
8) Get an interview early – in a new practice area, the researcher will be feeling their way through the subject. Obtain an interview and get in early, so that your lawyers can help the researcher to understand the subject and to help shape their view. That allows you to help them and, in doing so, to help them see what’s good about your firm’s proposition.

What’s New for The Legal 500 US 2018 Research

Posted on | by Mike Nash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal 500 EMEA 2018: Deadlines, Guidelines Now Available + Editor Insights

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

Attention all European, Middle East and Africa law firms: The Legal 500 has just published its 2018 edition submission deadlines, which can be accessed here. The key dates for your diary are as follows:

  • Referee spreadsheet deadline: 4 August 2017
  • Editorial submission deadline: 14 August 2017
  • Law firm interview period begins: 4 September 2017
  • Contacting referees: during September (precise date to be determined by number of referees received to contact – law firms will be informed one week before we contact referees)

There are big changes afoot editorially at The Legal 500, which we reported earlier today (please see here). We caught up with EMEA Editor Ella Marshall to discuss changes affecting the upcoming EMEA edition.

Are the changes to the editorial coverage of the UK guide being replicated in EMEA also?

We’re expanding content in the same way as the UK. Increases will be dictated by the availability of data, but we expect to deliver around three times the content for the largest and/or more sophisticated markets and will provide editorial content for every single firm that is ranked.

ella_marshallThe content will be online only, so the EMEA 2017 edition is, in fact, a collector’s edition!

In terms of new practice areas etc, what should firms look out for this year?

We are continuing our ongoing expansion of our Africa coverage to reflect demand from website users: this year, we’re adding Botswana, Senegal and Uganda to our coverage.

There are no Regional Summary sections this year (i.e. none for CEE, Africa or Middle East) because we’re now covering more markets and more practice areas in those markets than we were 3 years ago when we introduced the summaries as a catch-all.

We have also added English Bar: DIFC (Dubai International Finance Center) to the coverage this year as part of the UAE coverage to reflect the growing trend of work arising in the free zone.

The expansion of the word count has also enabled us to add practice areas to cover gaps in other markets, particularly with the introduction of more coverage of competition law, employment law and corporate/white-collar criminal law and compliance.

Law firms are strongly advised to check the list of practice areas carefully and not assume that the practice areas are the same as last year – there may have been additions or other amendments. We change the coverage every year to cater to market demand. New practice areas are marked as “NEW” or “RENAMED” or other appropriate indicators.

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.

Legal 500 Hires Catherine McGregor To Head Up Corporate Counsel Initiative

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

Leading legal directories company The Legal 500 has announced that Catherine McGregor will be joining the company on 27 May as Publishing Director: Corporate Counsel.  Her key focus will be to drive The Legal 500’s engagement with general counsel across the globe.

This is a terrific hire for The Legal 500, and is a clear indication of the company’s strategic approach and future plans for development. Catherine is one of the most experienced legal directory professionals in the market, having previously been Chambers & Partners’ Managing Editor for seven years, and most recently, Managing Editor of Lawdragon.

Says Legal 500 Managing Director David Goulthorpe: “We have recruited Catherine to extend [our corporate counsel] portfolio, and for her to launch a number of new initiatives aimed at corporate counsel. Catherine is a significant appointment for The Legal 500; she will work closely with David Burgess, Publishing Director of The Legal 500 and the global figurehead for the editorial and research teams. These are exciting times at The Legal 500, and in Catherine and David, I firmly believe that we have unparalleled editorial talent driving our business forward.”

Exciting times, indeed. The Legal 500 already has an impressive stock of products aimed at corporate counsel, beyond the core legal directories. Among these are US, UK and Latin America editions of The Corporate Counsel 100, recognising in-house innovation, quality & excellence; and The Corporate Counsel 100 Rising Stars, which recognise the next generation of general counsel – a UK edition is already published, and research is now underway for a forthcoming US edition.

Add these to the company’s leading directories business, its refreshingly different take on legal awards, and its various events, roundtables and client intelligence reports, and it’s clear that The Legal 500 is striving for innovation in its offering. And that can only be a good thing for the market generally.

 

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 Lauren Hughes, Editor, Legal 500 US

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

Lauren Hughes took over the editorship of the Legal 500 US earlier this year, bringing with her many years’ experience as a researcher on the US and other Legal 500 editions. I caught up with Lauren to talk about her plans for the forthcoming edition of the Legal 500 US – the deadlines for which are coming up in November – and to hear about some other new initiatives at Legal 500 that will be particular interest to the US legal market.

As the new editor of Legal 500 US, are you planning any changes to the structure of the book this year? Any new practice areas the market needs to be aware of?L500 logo

It will be much the same structure as last year’s, but with two additions: Cyber Crime will be included as a section within the Media, Technology and Telecoms chapter, and Sport has been reintroduced within the Industry Focus chapter. The timings remain the same as ever; submissions are due just after Thanksgiving, and research will take place through December and January.

You have plenty of first-hand experience of reviewing submissions, having been at Legal 500 for some years now. What are some of the things that US firms continue to get wrong with their submissions?

Not tailoring submissions for the Legal 500 is the biggest mistake. Our focus is on the elite only, so firms have to demonstrate that they have a strong national practice to even be considered. So, for example, receiving four submissions for four different offices is not helpful when trying to assess the overall capabilities of a firm. Nor is receiving a list of individual lawyers followed by each of their work highlights. We are much more interested in what the group has achieved collectively.

Another mistake is to send in submissions covering multiple sections, meaning I’d have to search it to find the bit that’s relevant for me. Firms should bear in mind that we allocate different researchers to each section, so it’s much better to send us a separate document for each.

And finally, listing lots of deals and cases with too much technical detail, without including context to explain why the matter is impressive.

But I should add that on the whole, the standard of submissions from the US is usually pretty good!

One key difference between Legal 500 and Chambers is the fact that Legal 500 accepts unlimited client references. How do you manage the process of contacting them all, and any follow up that might need doing?

We have an amazing admin team here, and they pull together the vast number of client reference emails we get each year, and ensure that we are not sending multiple emails to the same person, that kind of thing. As for how on earth they manage it, who knows! But we don’t chase the referees down as we don’t want to bug them. If they want to respond, they will.

What can firms do to optimize response levels from their client references, and when should those actions be taken?

It goes without saying that they should ask for permission before putting their names down. But they may want to remind them again when December comes round, and at that time they will also be able to provide the name of the individual researcher who’ll be emailing them. And I always advise contacting the researcher towards the end of the research period to ask if they’ve received a sufficient number of responses.

Also references don’t strictly have to be clients, nor do they have to be the GC; it can be anybody who can provide an assessment about the practice. It’s better to choose the people who are more likely to respond.

The referee feedback is a key component of the research, but for us it’s not necessarily the be all and end all. We understand that a lack of feedback can be put down to a number of different reasons, so if it happens it doesn’t necessarily mean the firm will drop a tier. Being able to demonstrate a strong track record of work is more important.

Tell me about your research team – is it the same team as last year, or will there be any new faces?

I’m happy to say there are many of the same faces as before. Continuity is important to us and to the firms, and we get a lot of good feedback about that. As the company is in growth mode, it’s inevitable that there’ll be some new faces too. And there are a few members in the team who have been promoted to other positions, but they will still be around to mentor and oversee the others’ work.

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 editors will always work more closely with newer researchers. Some will be new to the US market but will have worked on our other books, as the team rotates. For those people, we will spend some time at the start of the research to go through the slightly different approach needed for the US market. Speaking more generally, new starters always get the opportunity to listen in on interviews, and take part in a number of formal training sessions too. For the first year or so, they are assigned a ‘mentor’ who sits nearby and can answer all their questions. But the training never really stops. We regularly have practice area-specific training sessions, either conducted internally or with lawyers.

I have to mention that we always welcome hearing firms’ thoughts about our researchers. Equally, our publishing director is always happy to give feedback on firms’ marketing and BD staff, so it works both ways!

What are your thoughts on allocating experienced researchers to the same sections as they covered in previous years. Good idea or bad idea?

Good idea. Definitely. As I mentioned, firms always tell us that they appreciate it as it means they don’t have to reinvent the wheel every time and can trust that person to make a well-informed assessment of the market. M&A, employment and technology are some examples of areas that have had the same researcher for many years.

A key new initiative for Legal 500 this year is the Corporate Counsel 100, which launches this weekend. Could you give us some insights into this new initiative?

The whole concept of the Legal 500 is to produce useful copy for corporate counsel, and at the moment we do that by helping them choose which law firm to instruct. But we thought, why stop at that? So the Corporate Counsel 100 is a way of letting them know what their own peers are up to, and enabling them to share ideas. When it came to selecting people for the list, law firms jumped at the chance to nominate as it’s a way for them to give something back to their clients, as opposed to asking them to provide yet another reference!

The research and writing process for this has been consuming all my time for the past while, so I hope people will enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it. I interviewed so many inspiring people and was quite blown away by some of the things they’ve achieved. It’s also been a great way for me as editor to learn more about what they want and need from their outside counsel, and about how the Legal 500 can help facilitate those needs.

We’ll be launching the list at the IBA and ACC conferences this month, and the full editorial will be available online. There are plans to replicate it in other jurisdictions, so stay tuned.

Are there any other U.S.-focused initiatives you’re planning for the coming year?

There are quite a few! Some are in the early stages so I won’t say too much, but we have added a new research arm to the business, who will be producing bespoke industry insight reports on request. We are also planning to do more roundtables. Then there’s the global client feedback report that’s in the works. And, the UK awards seem to be going down well over here, so perhaps we might replicate that model in the US.

Legal 500 Takes Fresh Approach To Awards Ceremonies

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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