Legal 500 has always been a serious reference point for firms and clients alike, and as it moves towards its fourth decade, it is clear how much weight the market now places on the depth, credibility, and evolution of research.

We have been following with interest the industry-wide investment in data, analytics, and client insight, as we have seen with Legal 500’s Mondaq tie-up and the wider push toward more sophisticated, data-led products.

With that in mind, we caught up with Antony Cooke, Director of Data Innovation and Strategy at Legal 500, to understand a few points:

What was the thinking behind positioning the Client Service Accolades and Net-Promoter Scores® as a separate product from the core Legal 500 rankings?

The accolades are directly visible alongside the rankings, and can be used to filter search results. The rankings are the universally acknowledged measure of overall capability. They’re the sum of everything we know about the team, shortlisted as our recommendation to in-house counsel. But for a market becoming more critical over procurement decisions, we want to respond to that with a more nuanced picture of capability and offering. Awarding accolades on four new metrics supports GCs in making more informed, data-led decisions.

The research underpinning these accolades does feature among the inputs in our ranking decisions, so it’s not quite a separate product but more, a new way to recognise excellence alongside the rankings, the client testimonials, work highlights and the Legal 500 independent review.

How do you see the Client Service Accolades evolving over time, and what will clearly distinguish them from the rankings in terms of methodology and intended use for firms and clients?

This first release is the tip of the iceberg. Our goal is to be as useful a decision-making tool as we can be to in-house counsel. When our research team assesses a law firm’s capabilities, we consider data on multiple dimensions, qualitative and quantitative. We want corporate counsel to be able to tap into that methodology – for them to interrogate our data and analysis by what matters the most to them. These new accolades are a milestone for Legal 500, but there will be more to come.

Could you share more detail on how the client satisfaction accolades are compiled, and whether they may support more advanced search or filtering for users over time?

The accolades are built exclusively on quantitative data. Our client referee quant research started in 2018, establishing the global benchmark for client service and Net-Promoter Score® for the legal industry. Until this year, we hadn’t made this granular benchmarking public, but it gave us time to build confidence in the power of the data set and test its validity.

Today, over 200,000 client referees rate their experiences with their firms on multiple points of value. The themes we present online – Lawyer & Team Quality, Billing & Efficiency, Sector Knowledge – are built on a range of thematic questions that measure the firm’s performance in those three areas.

We then put the data through rigorous significance and validation testing before consideration for usage. Legal 500 fully recognises the high standards lawyers hold themselves to, so in generating the accolades our policy is to recognise relative excellence – that in a market created by natural high-performers, there is a handful of firms deserving of a special mention. So the accolades we publish truly represent the pinnacle of an already impressive pool of candidates for the qualities that clients care about.

Given that Chambers places strong emphasis on referee interviews, while Legal 500 has traditionally focused on substantive work highlights, how should firms best understand the role and weight of client satisfaction within Legal 500’s overall research model?

The client satisfaction research has become a more prominent feature of Legal 500’s research as our data set has grown and demonstrated its power.

Submissions and interviews play an essential role in helping the research team identify the nature and capabilities of each team in the market, while the quantitative research validates our findings and provides a further benchmark for objective comparability. For our research to be robust – to help GCs make the very best decisions they can – we insist on building multiple data sources into our assessment.