Tag: submissions

Inspecting the inner workings of the Chambers submission machinery (Photo by Shane Aldendorff on Unsplash)

Changes to Chambers Submission Template (UK onwards)

Posted on | by Mike Nash

Not the most exciting title but since (a) Chambers & Partners hasn’t shouted from the rooftops about the changes and (b) these are important things for directory submission-preparers to know about, I’m shouting about it for you.

Chambers introduced a new submission template when it announced the Chambers UK schedule. The template can be found in the “Forms” section of the menu on left-side of screen here: https://chambers.com/research/submissions

At first glance, it looks like not much changed but the changes are significant.

Key changes as follows:

1) Chambers has essentially merged the old sections B10 and C2 (“what is the department known for” and “feedback on your rankings”) under the new section B10, so all your key arguments go in one place – that’s a sensible step. There’s a nominal 500-word limit, so it’s more important than ever to avoid fluff and to present concisely – even more reason to use bullet points.

2) As some SavageNash blogs had trailed earlier this year, Chambers has introduced specific segments to cover diversity & inclusion data. These are covered in sections B2-B6 in the new form. They ask explicitly for gender, minority, LGBT and disability stats (by practice, which may make it hard to get some of the requested data). Now that Chambers has broken through that wall, I would fully expect The Legal 500 to follow suit in due course.

3) Chambers has excised the old section B11 (notes on press coverage, other awards and rankings) and the old sections B8-B9 (foreign experts and foreign desks). These were largely superfluous and it makes sense to get rid.

4) The old sections B6-B7 (lawyer nominations) have been merged under what is now section B9 in the new form. This means that all nominations of ranked and unranked lawyers go together in the same section (with a Yes/No box to mark whether they are currently ranked or not).

In summary: use the new form for Chambers UK and all other guides going forward after that!

 

About the author: my name is Mike Nash and I’m one of three specialist directories consultants at SavageNash Legal Communications, all of whom are senior former directories editors; two of us also worked in-house in marketing & communications at international law firms. If you’d like to know more about how we could help your law firm with your directories needs, then please use the “Contact US” section to get in touch.

 

 

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

Chambers: How To Request Adding A New Category

Posted on | by Nigel Savage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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