Category: Rankings results

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.

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.

 

 

 

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).

IFLR1000 Expands, Adding U.S. State-wide Rankings

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

 

The next edition of legal directory IFLR1000 will feature considerably expanded coverage of the U.S. market, adding rankings and editorial in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

IFLR1000 – Euromoney Institutional Investor’s flagship legal directory, which is now in its 27th year – is unique in that it focuses its research exclusively on the corporate and finance areas. This sets it apart from, for example, the Legal 500 and Chambersguides, which cover the full range of legal services (employment, real estate, life sciences etc.)

IFLR1000‘s expanded editorial will include rankings and editorial in four core practice areas: Banking, Capital Markets, M&A, and Restructuring & Insolvency. However, the depth of the market in each state will determine which areas appear in each state – it’s unlikely that all four practice areas will be covered in all 50 states.

The state-wide rankings will sit alongside the nationwide rankings. As is the case with Chambers, firms are of course able to submit both for the state-wide sections and the nationwide sections (for the time being at least, Legal 500 prefers to adopt the nationwide-only model, and it’s working well for them).

IFLR1000‘s rankings are based on three criteria: quality and quantity of deals, peer feedback, and client feedback.

A few things firms should bear in mind when putting submissions together (this according to IFLR1000‘s press release on the expanded coverage):

  • Deals should be focused on the state in question. They should have been completed primarily by lawyers based in that state, and governed by that state’s laws.
  • Deals involving two of more states can be submitted in each individual state submission.
  • International cross-border deals should be submitted as part of the nationwide research process.
  • Firms can submit deals that have been completed, on or which they have started work on, since January 2017.

Follow these links for more information on how to take part, as well as IFLR1000‘s practice area definitions.

My Take On This

I applaud Euromoney for taking steps to expand and improve its coverage of the world’s biggest legal market. I have felt for a while now that concerted efforts by both Legal 500 and Chambers to hone their research processes and engage fully with corporate counsel have meant those two organizations have pulled far ahead of the competition, in the U.S. and elsewhere. IFLR1000 is, in my view, playing catch-up.

The rankings/legal directory space is becoming more and more crowded, and firms are increasingly reluctant – not to mention unable – to submit to everything. At SavageNash Communications, we’ve come across many large firms who are significantly cutting back on the number of rankings publications they submit to, and instead are selecting a small handful of market leaders on which to focus their efforts.

This is the challenge IFLR1000 will face.

Strong, deep research and compelling editorial coverage are absolutely essential to success of any new directory in this already overcrowded market. I sincerely hope IFLR1000 has significantly expanded its editorial team to handle the large amount of extra research this new venture will require.

As ever, please feel free to get in touch if we can help.

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.

Rankings: How Are You Really Doing?

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

When a leading directory releases a new set of results, firms are eager to look up their own rankings. Where did we go up? Where did we go down? And (as marketing teams are all too acutely aware) – who can we blame for any disappointments?

Of course, it’s important for firms to chart their own progress year-on-year. It’s good for both internal morale and external messaging to say “we’ve got four more practice rankings and nine more lawyers ranked than we did last year”.

But, even more compelling is for firms to chart their progress against their competitors, and benchmark their rankings accordingly. For example, your firm might not be adding rankings as quickly as the partners would like; but if your competitors’ rankings are all static or falling, you’re outperforming the market. And that‘s a message worth shouting about.

How I Can Help

  • I have devised a number of key metrics that benchmark firms’ rankings against one another, which can be used to give firms a true picture of how they’re performing in the market – both currently and historically.
  • Analysis of year-on-year progress of a firm’s own rankings, at both the practice and individual levels.

Shout About Your Results

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

The amount of time and effort that goes into putting together directory submissions is enormous (and I should know!). And yet, many firms often don’t do anything with their results beyond the standard news item on their website.

I think those firms are missing a trick. It’s so important to make the amount of work your lawyers and marketers put in really pay off once the results come out, by adopting intelligent, eye-catching strategies for communicating your rankings both internally and externally.

On the other side of the coin, engaging with the directories throughout the year – rather than simply during the hard slog that is the submission process – can really pay dividends.

How I Can Help

  • Clear summaries and analysis of directory performance.
  • Innovative strategies for promoting directory and awards successes on law firms’ websites.
  • Developing a dedicated directories intranet page.
  • Representing firms in person with directory editors and researchers.
  • Keeping the directories updated with news and information throughout the year.