Tag: Chambers Europe

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

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.

Tips To Sharpen Up Your Chambers Submissions: Show, Don’t Tell

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

“We advise a range of blue-chip corporate clients on their big matters”

Good for you. But guess what? So do the other 150 firms that are trying to get ranked… way to stand out from the crowd.

Firms include the above sort of statement time and time again when drafting their submissions. I can understand why – marketing teams under time pressures to top-and-tail a practice’s work highlights with some messaging can all too easily fall into the trap of relying on generic “marketing-speak” to flesh out a submission’s content.

Unfortunately, it’s the sort of thing that falls on deaf ears at the directories. It may as well not be there at all.

It’s vital to include information in the submission that shows how your practice and your lawyers stand out from the crowd. What are you really great at? Why do clients come to you, specifically? What makes you a better draw for clients than the other firms in the market? Why is your work worthy of getting you ranked?

These are the messages that should permeate the entire submission – the Overview, the Work Highlights, and the Feedback section. Without this focus on differentiating yourself from your competitor firms, your submissions will end up sounding generic and, dare I say, just a little bit dull.

Every practice is different, and most matters will likely have their own elements that raise them above the norm. However, here are a few quick tips to think about:

The “So What?’ Test: When selecting matters, read each matter description back to yourself and apply the “so-what?” test. If you are left shrugging your shoulders and wondering what’s so special about the matter, explain what makes it interesting. If you can’t, consider whether it might not be strong enough to be included.

What Constitutes Interesting? There are too many potential criteria to list here, but for starters, consider these main ones:

  • A matter that sets a precedent, sets a template for future matters, or will be of widespread application;
  • The first time a deal has been done in a certain jurisdiction, or involving clients from a certain jurisdiction;
  • A matter that demonstrates legal innovation;
  • The first time a deal has been done in a new regulatory environment;
  • A matter that was of supreme importance to your client; and
  • A matter that reflects a notable market trend.

And, of course, don’t keep this information to yourself. Explain how the matter fits into one of the above criteria.

Be Specific in the Feedback Section: If you’re trying to break into a table, or get moved up the table, it’s not enough to say, “we should be ranked/ranked higher because we’ve been very busy handling some very important matters for some very big clients” (see my opening paragraph). It’s essential to draw specific comparisons with the firms you want to be ranked alongside. What makes you as good as them? More matters? Back it up with hard evidence (league tables, for example). The same matters? List your matters and mark which currently ranked firms appeared across the table from/alongside your firm.

Researchers are smart people, but they’re not the legal experts that your partners are. Nor are they mind-readers. Don’t just tell them them you should be ranked/ranked higher – explainto them why you should be.

Quick legal directory tips: Nigel Savage interviewed on LexBlog TV

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

I was interviewed by LexBlog TV’s Colin O’Keefe last week during the excellent LMA Annual Conference in Orlando, Florida. In this  short interview I talk about what I believe to be the essence of preparing a good legal directory submission – focus.

I’ve already been invited to speak at next year’s LMA Conference in San Diego; we’re aiming to put together a great panel covering everything you need to know about legal directories and rankings. Watch this space.

Interview with Chambers Europe: Georgia Brooks, Editor

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

For a wealth of inside information relating to Chambers Europe, check out my interview with the Editor, Georgia Brooks. I caught up with Georgia recently to discuss changes to this year’s book, and tips for how to engage with the research process.

Are you planning any changes to the structure of the book this year? Any new practice areas/changes in approach the market needs to be aware of?

Firstly, the 2014 Chambers Europe guide will look very different to previous editions.  We have greatly changed the editorial layout, to highlight a team’s key strengths as well as its main areas of activities.  Extended information, such as basic facts about the department and additional work highlights, will also be available on our website: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/guide/europe/7Georgia_Brooks

This year we have added an unprecedented number of new practice areas at both a country level and in the Europe-wide chapter.  Energy has been a key area of law for multiple jurisdictions, and we researched it for the first time in Belgium, Denmark, Finland and Sweden.  At a Europe-wide level we have seen an increase in internal investigations and regulatory work, so added two new sections to cover these: Corporate Investigations and Regulatory & Public Affairs.  Data Protection is another growing area of focus across Europe, and that too has been introduced in the Europe-wide section.

Lastly, we conducted more regional research and added separate Central & Eastern Europe sections in Banking & Finance, Corporate/M&A and Dispute Resolution.  We also introduced a Baltic-wide Corporate/Commercial section to highlight firms active in that region.  At a country level, we also added France Regions and Russia Regions sections; which will highlight firms who are active outside of the capital.

European firms have been submitting to Chambers for more than 20 years. What are some of the things firms continue to get wrong with their submissions?

The key aspect that firms continue to get wrong, or rather miss completely, is to explain why a work highlight is important and explain the specific role the team played.  It definitely helps to summarise the matter – concisely! – and put it into context.  Also feel free to send us additional information from local news sources, where relevant.

Furthermore, a lot of firms only highlight on the top-value deals, whereas it helps to show a breadth of expertise.  It’s a good idea to explain all the strengths of the team, then use the ten work matters as an illustration.

Finally, and I cannot stress this enough, but missing the deadline is a big no-no!

What’s your advice on how firms with plenty of lawyers ranked in a section should get more lawyers on the list?

I advise taking a two-pronged approach; first, make sure that you highlight the lawyers you want to see ranked in the submission.  There is space on the submission form to include key names, and it’s also crucial that their work highlights are also listed, so we can see what work they have handled.  Secondly, put forward client referees who can talk about the team as a whole and a range of individuals.  Of course make sure that the client is happy and willing to speak to us – this makes such a difference!

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

We do have a few new faces to the team, which is natural in such a large research team. However, the greatest change has been with the deputy editors; we promoted four individuals towards the end of 2013.  All four were extremely experienced researchers, and one (Lucy Craig) was previously the assistant editor for Germany.  I’m sure many firms will recognise them from their time as researchers.  Here they are below as well as the list of jurisdictions they oversee:

Francesca Lean – France, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain
Katherine Yu – the Baltic and Nordic regions, Poland, Russia and Ukraine
Lucy Craig – Austria, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland
William Robertson – Central and South East Europe, plus Turkey.

If firms have any queries about the research it’s best to come to me and the deputy editor for the relevant country.

When recruiting, how much weight do you place on native/fluent speakers of foreign languages?

Being able to speak to clients and lawyers in their native tongue is extremely useful, and in some jurisdictions absolutely crucial!  On the current Europe team our researchers speak over ten different languages, including French, German, Portuguese, Greek, Hungarian and Russian.  Foreign languages are a very important part of the research and thus the recruiting process.

For any new researchers, what steps do you take before research starts to educate them a little, to make sure they are not coming to it completely cold?

For most of February and March the deputy editors, assistant editors and myself interview managing partners from firms across Europe.  It is a great time for the managing partners to tell us about key market developments as well as changes at their own firm.  We use the information we gather to better allocate our resources throughout the year, and of course pass this knowledge onto the researcher before research starts.  Thus, researchers know in advance what has been happening in the market as well as new practice areas or firms to ask about.

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

For the Europe team, the most important element in assigning researchers is language.  Thus for jurisdictions where speaking the native language is crucial, such as France, Germany, Spain, Russia, Italy, then it is obviously a good idea to have the same researcher cover the jurisdiction.  That said, a fresh pair of eyes can offer a different perspective, not to mention a different research experience.  At a deputy and editor level then we try to keep consistency, as we are the ones ultimately evaluating the research.  You will notice that the deputy editors are responsible for a region, which gives them expert knowledge of various jurisdictions as well as an understanding of how those countries often work together.

Any plans for the researchers to travel to meet with firms face-to-face? It’s something that firms appreciate in relation to at least one of your close rival publications…

I and the deputy editors frequently meet with firms when they come to London.  It is definitely useful to hold face-to-face meetings, as it enhances our knowledge of the firm and likewise allows us to explain more about the research process.  I am also quite fortunate in that I can travel to meet firms on occasion e.g. in the last year I visited firms in Turkey, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Germany and Ukraine.  As much as we would all like to be travelling across Europe, we find that we can conduct more thorough research from our base in London.  You may find that surprising but the researchers couldn’t travel with the database in tow, nor would they have the wealth of material that we have in the office.

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

For the 2015 guide we are expanding our regional coverage even further by introducing a CIS Corporate/Commercial section.  At a Europe-wide level we will research Real Estate for the first time, while in the Central & Eastern Europe section we will add Dispute Resolution.  Compliance has been the buzzword for a while now, and we are introducing the section in Germany.  The Germany chapter will also see new Commercial Contracts and Transportation sections.

Another key initiative that we are focusing on is to develop the mid-market coverage, such as Corporate/M&A sections divided into High-End Capability and Mid-Market.  This is currently in place for France and Germany, and I imagine this will only grow.  Indeed, we are seeing increased engagement from firms active at this level as well as interest from clients.

Research for the 2015 guide starts in March and the first submission deadline was 24 February.  However, we are still accepting submissions so firms should check the online schedule for further information: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/secure/research-schedule