Research schedule

The deadline for both the client referee spreadsheet and the editorial submission document is 3 August 2026. This deadline also applies to the Nordic jurisdictions for referee submissions, although Nordic firms have until 28 August 2026 to submit their editorial submissions.

Research will commence in September 2026, with the Legal 500 EMEA 2027 rankings scheduled for publication in March 2027.

Firms should ensure that referee spreadsheets are submitted on time, as late submissions may affect whether referees are contacted during the research process.

Legal 500 has also introduced a new submissions portal. Firms are encouraged to access and test the portal well before the deadline. Any portal-related queries can be directed to the Legal 500 Helpdesk via the FAQ page: https://www.legal500.com/faqs/.

New Jurisdictions and Practice Areas

Legal 500 has expanded its EMEA coverage to include three new jurisdictions:

• Botswana
• Malta
• Zimbabwe

The rankings for these jurisdictions will initially focus on Leading Firms.

Some practice area changes have also been introduced:

• Ireland now includes a new Public Procurement category.
• Changes have been made to France’s Media & Entertainment and Tax categories.
• In Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Turkey, the Commercial, Corporate and M&A rankings will now be divided into High-End and Mid-Market categories. This creates additional opportunities for firms operating in the mid-market segment to gain recognition.

Submissions and ranking criteria

Legal 500 seeks to identify firms and individuals that demonstrate genuine market leadership and can provide evidence of outstanding work. Ranking decisions are based on a combination of submission analysis and independent market research.

Key factors considered include:

1. Technical ability to handle complex and innovative matters.
2. Depth and strength of the wider team, beyond a small number of prominent partners.
3.          Capacity to advise on significant transactions and disputes, with strength across related practice areas.
4. New client engagements and positive market perception.
5. Overall quality and consistency of work.

Preparing Quality Submissions

A strong submission should present all relevant information while clearly demonstrating what differentiates the firm in the market.

Firms should note the following:

1. Matter highlights should fall within the relevant research period.
2. Ongoing matters should include recent developments.
3. The same matter may be used across multiple submissions, but descriptions should be tailored to the relevant practice area.
4. Lawyers who devote less than 50% of their time to the practice area should generally not be included.
5. Lawyers featured in the submission should be actively involved in the highlighted matters.

To improve rankings and maintain rankings firms are encouraged to submit consistently every year, provide all required information on the submission including start and end dates as each required information serves specific purposes, provide deal values where possible,  and clearly explain the complexity, significance and impact of matters, rather than relying on general or descriptive statements.

Lawyer Ranking categories

Hall of Fame – Lawyers at the very top of the profession who are widely recognised as market leaders and have been consistently ranked as Leading Partners over a number of years.

Leading partners – Established market leaders with strong reputations who lead multiple significant matters and receive exceptional endorsement from clients and peers.

Next generation partners – Typically younger partners, generally with five years or fewer at partner level, who play leading roles on important matters and receive strong recognition from clients and peers.

Leading Associates – Associate-level lawyers who regularly feature on significant matters and receive recognition from clients and/or peers.

Improving Lawyer Rankings

To maximise opportunities for individual recognition, firms should:

• Focus on genuinely outstanding lawyers.
• Provide evidence of recent and significant work.
• Include detailed lawyer biographies and achievements rather than relying solely on website profile links.

For firms with counsel-level lawyers, Legal 500 recommends including outstanding counsel in the Leading Associates section of the submission. Depending on the evidence provided and the quality of work demonstrated, researchers may ultimately place such individuals in either the Leading Associates or Next Generation Partners category.

Client Referees

The referee process is managed by a dedicated referee team that operates separately from the editorial research team. Accordingly, firms should direct referee-related questions to the referee team rather than researchers or editors. The preferred contact route is through the Legal 500 FAQ page: https://www.legal500.com/faqs/.

To maximise the effectiveness of the referee process, firms should ensure that:

1. Referee spreadsheets are submitted in the correct format.
2. A separate referee spreadsheet is provided for each practice area.
3. Referees have worked with the firm within the previous 12–18 months.
4. Referees are familiar with the firm’s work and are likely to respond.
5. High-quality referees are prioritised over sheer volume.

Premium subscribers also have access to the Referee Track & Add tool and there is currently no limit on the number of referees that can be submitted.

It is worthy of note that client-led feedback remains a central component of Legal 500’s research methodology

Client Satisfaction & NPS Accolades

In addition to the rankings, Legal500 has introduced the client satisfaction and net promoter score (NPS) accolades to better utilise the data received via the feedback provided by clients. This is applied only to the top 30% of firms, purely based on client feedback and not a replacement for the core submission research process. Available categories are Billing and Efficiency, the Net Promoter Score, Sector Knowledge and Lawyer and Team Quality.

Interviews

Each research cycle, Legal 500 conducts interviews with a representative selection of firms, chambers and practitioners. If a firm is not interviewed, it does not in any way affect the firm’s assessment or ranking.

Firms interested in speaking with researchers are encouraged to contact the relevant researcher early in the research cycle. Productive interviews typically focus on significant developments within the firm’s practice over the previous year, strategic growth initiatives or team expansion, or areas where the firm believes it could get more recognition.

Legal 500 also noted that interviews are generally more effective when conducted with a small group of lawyers rather than a large number of participants.

Importantly, in the Legal500 research process, peer feedback does not determine ranking outcomes. Instead, it serves as a source of market intelligence and may highlight areas warranting further investigation by researchers.

Conclusion

Firms seeking recognition in the Legal 500 EMEA rankings should engage proactively with the research process by submitting high-quality editorial submissions and comprehensive referee information. Strong submissions, meaningful client feedback and consistent participation year after year remain key factors in ensuring that firms and individuals receive appropriate market recognition.

The post Webinar Watch – Legal 500 EMEA: Meet the Editor (ranked firms) appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

Here are five important steps law firms should take after submitting to Chambers and Partners:

1. Effective Referee Management

Whether your firm has access to the Chambers Referee Management Tool (RMT) or not, referee management is one of the most important post-submission activities.  Client and peer feedback plays a significant role in the Chambers research process, so firms should ensure that referees are properly informed and prepared. After submission, firms should:

1. Contact referees to inform them that Chambers may reach out to them.
2. Encourage referees to add chambers.com to their safe senders list so Chambers’ emails do not go to spam.
3. Provide brief context on why Chambers may be asking about particular matters or practice areas.Encourage referees to respond promptly and engage with the researchers.Let busy referees know that they may be able to provide written feedback if they are unavailable for a call.
4. Avoid coaching clients on what to say, as Chambers researchers can often detect overly scripted feedback.

For firms with access to the Chambers RMT, it is useful to monitor response rates during the research period. Where referees appear unresponsive or have unsubscribed from Chambers emails, firms may follow up with them politely to understand whether there are communication issues that can be addressed.

The goal is not to be overly pushy or pressure referees.  It is to make the process easy for them and remove any practical barriers to their participation. This is also why strong client relationships matter long before research begins.

2. Prepare for Lawyer/Partner calls with Chambers

Chambers may invite lawyers or partners to participate in research calls. These invitations are not automatic, and researchers often select participants based on the needs of the research process per cycle.

If a partner at your firm is invited to speak with a Chambers researcher, preparation is essential. It is important to understand that the purpose of the lawyer call is not to complain about rankings or spend the entire conversation promoting the firm. A good lawyer call should provide useful market insight, briefly explain the firm’s strengths and positioning, and offer thoughtful feedback on other practitioners in the market.

Before the call, the participating lawyer should be prepared to discuss:

1. Key developments in the practice area.
2. Important market trends.
3. The firm’s most significant strengths and differentiators.
4. Key developments within the team at the firm.
5. Any relevant context from the submission.

Firms should also be strategic about who joins the call. If Chambers requests to speak with a specific partner, avoid adding too many additional lawyers. Where additional participation is necessary, keep the group small, ideally no more than two or three lawyers, so the conversation remains focused and effective.

3. Engage with Chambers Researchers, but do not be overbearing

During the research process, there may be legitimate reasons to contact Chambers researchers. For example, a firm may need to update referee details, ask about referee responses, clarify an issue, or confirm that a referee who previously unsubscribed is now willing to participate. It is perfectly acceptable to reach out in such circumstances.

However, firms should remember that researchers are usually managing a high volume of calls, emails, interviews, and submissions during the research period.

To maintain a productive relationship, firms should be thoughtful and organised in their communication. Instead of sending several short emails, it may be better to compile questions and send them in one clear message, perhaps once a week where appropriate.

At the same time, if a researcher contacts the firm for clarification, additional information, or a lawyer call, the firm should respond promptly. Timely and helpful responses can make the research process smoother for everyone involved.

4. Track matter updates and new achievements

The post-submission period is not the time to put submissions aside until the next cycle. Law firms should continue tracking new matters, case developments, transactions, client wins, awards, lateral hires, promotions, and other achievements that may be relevant to future submissions.

This is also a good time to audit the submission process internally. Firms can ask:

1. What worked well this cycle?
2. Were there information gaps?
3. Which practice groups were most responsive?
4. Were there challenges gathering matter details or referee information?
5. What can be improved before the next submission deadline?

By reviewing the process while it is still fresh, firms can make the next cycle more efficient and strategic. Maintaining a live record of matters and achievements throughout the year also reduces the last-minute pressure that often comes with directory submissions.

5. Prepare for results and marketing

Firms should begin preparing for rankings release before the results are announced. This ensures that once rankings are published, the firm can move quickly with its marketing and communications. Useful preparations may include:

1. Drafting press releases.
2. Preparing website updates.
3. Creating social media content.
4. Drafting internal announcements.
5. Preparing lawyer and practice group biographies for updates.
6. Planning client alerts or newsletters where appropriate.

This preparation is especially important for firms expecting new rankings, improved rankings, individual lawyer recognitions, or notable practice area results. Timely promotion helps firms maximize the value of their Chambers recognition and ensures that the rankings are communicated clearly across relevant channels.

Conclusion

A Chambers submission should not be treated as a one-off task that ends once the submissions are uploaded. The period after submission is a valuable opportunity to support referees, engage appropriately with researchers, prepare lawyers for calls, track new achievements, and plan for rankings release.

Firms that approach the post-submission period strategically are better positioned to make the most of the research cycle and build a stronger foundation for future submissions. In legal directory work, consistent year-round preparation often makes the difference between a rushed submission process and a more effective, competitive rankings strategy.

The post 5 Things Law Firms Should Do After Submitting to Chambers and Partners appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

Benchmark Litigation is a directory dedicated to the world’s leading litigation firms and lawyers. Unlike general legal directories, it focuses exclusively on dispute resolution specialists, covering firms and practitioners across different industry sectors. Rankings are determined through extensive interviews with litigators and their clients, alongside analysis of significant cases and firm developments. The directory covers jurisdictions across the Americas, Asia-Pacific, and EMEA; this guide focuses specifically on the USA process.

Methodology

Benchmark Litigation’s research draws on firm questionnaires, attorney interviews, client and professional feedback surveys, news sources, and independent research. The key components are explained below:

The Submission Document

The case highlight section is the most important part of the submission. Firms should use it to present work highlights and summaries, spotlighting the lead partners on each matter. As only partners are ranked, there is no need to feature associates prominently. Confidential matters should be marked in red font for easy identification. It is also worthy of note that there is no limit to the number of matters that can be included on the submission.

The awards section is reserved for matters being put forward for the Impact Case Award. These should represent the firm’s most significant work, must not be confidential, and should ideally be concluded matters the firm has won.

Client and Professional Referees

The best referees are those who are accessible, willing to engage with researchers, and able to speak specifically to the firm’s practice and the partners involved. Where possible, referees should be linked to matters referenced in the submission. Co-counsel, opposing counsel, and retired judges are all acceptable as referees. There is no cap on the number of referees, though quality is more important than quantity.

Attorney Interviews

Benchmark also conducts interviews with partners. These interviews are considered more than a firm promotional opportunity. Peer review and market commentary are important elements of the interviews.

Firms are encouraged to proactively request interviews rather than wait to be contacted. Interview requests can be directed to:

• Michael Rafalowich — mrafalowich@benchmarklitigation.com
• Makenzie Rodrigues — makenzie.rodrigues@benchmarklitigation.com
• Blaike Parker — blaike.parker@benchmarklitigation.com

Interviews can be conducted by phone, video, or in person in New York. They can be booked from the start of the research period, even before the submission deadline, and will run until 27 June 2026.

Getting started

To participate, firms must:

• submit firm questionnaire and client/professional references on the Accreditation Portal
  • create account if the firm does not have an existing account. (HERE)
  • complete research form (link to the template HERE) and client referee template (HERE)
  • Ensure all eligible dispute resolution partners complete the practitioner survey once it becomes available.

Tips for Improved Rankings

• Register on the portal promptly.
• Observe submission deadlines; extensions can be requested and are usually granted within reasonable timeframes.
• Write clearly and directly. Researchers prefer plain language over legal jargon.
• Lead with the strongest cases. Since there is no limit on the number of matters included, ensure the most complex and significant work is not buried lower in the submission.
• Make sure the firm’s strongest partners during the research period are well represented. Rising stars deserve attention too.
• If any part of the firm’s practice is underrepresented or missing in the rankings, flag this in the submission and provide supporting evidence.

Rankings

Firm Rankings

Firms are ranked as either “recommended” or “highly recommended” depending on the volume of peer recommendations received. Rankings are further divided into National firms (dominant players with coast-to-coast recognition), and State firms (acknowledged as leaders within a single jurisdiction).

Lawyer Rankings

• Litigation star — established key players identified by peers and clients.
• National star — specialists in key practice areas recognised across the country, regardless of where they are based. National stars are also ranked locally by default.
• Future star — lawyers still building their reputations. Future stars cannot simultaneously hold National star designation.

Benchmark Special Honors List

In addition to its core rankings, Benchmark Litigation produces three special lists.

Benchmark 40 & Under

This list recognises law firm partners aged 40 or younger as of 1 August 2026, across the US and Canada. Nominees must hold partner status, and a confirmed date of birth must be provided for every candidate. To nominate, complete the relevant section of the US research questionnaire. Results are announced in August.

Benchmark Top 250 Women in Litigation

This list is compiled through several months of research into individual female litigators’ professional activities, supported by client feedback surveys and one-on-one interviews. It covers practitioners in the US and Canada. Nominees must hold partner status and are put forward via the Top 250 section of the US research questionnaire. Results are announced in August.

Both lists require the submission to be uploaded by the deadline.

Top 100 Trial Lawyers

This is a special feature list and accompanying novel editorial that will be appearing with the master edition in the fall of 2026. It will highlight the leading trial lawyers (as opposed to litigators) in the US as discovered during the Benchmark research.

2027 Cycle – Key dates  

Important Reminders

• One submission per firm, regardless of location or the number of practice areas covered.  
  • One referee document per firm.
  • No minimum or maximum on the number of cases, nominated lawyers, or referees.
  • Only partners are ranked in the USA.
  • Cases should ideally have been resolved in the past 12 months, though ongoing matters may be included if they are particularly innovative or significant.
  • Confidential cases may be included, and confidential information should be marked in red font.
  • The deadline for the 2027 research cycle is April 24, 2026.

Useful links

• Benchmark Litigation — Research methodology
  • US methodology
  • Recorded webinar

The post A Guide to Benchmark Litigation USA appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

This point cannot be overemphasised. For most directories, referees are a key part of their methodology. This is because, speaking to referees gives the directories the most possibility of receiving unbiased feedback about the firm, and its all-round service that goes beyond the substance of the work itself. For Chambers, referee response can contribute to roughly 55% of the research methodology. Therefore, to think that referees are not important or to not pay attention to them can be a costly mistake. 

Availability trumps popularity 

In choosing referees for a research cycle, it is important to consider who is available and will have the time to speak to the researchers or complete the survey forms. The referee does not have to be the CEO or COO of the client’s company. It is enough to have an integral member of the team, who may not be as popular or senior on the team but has the time and knowledge to provide the feedback and information needed for the research process. 

Familiarity over seniority 

This point flows from point 2 above. The chosen referee should be a person familiar with the team of lawyers and the advice provided to the client in the past year. Ideally, the referee should be the person that has liaised with the firm and lawyers on the matters, who is able to describe the work sufficiently, mention the names of the lawyers active on the matter and what the roles of each lawyer was on the matter. The closer you get to choosing a referee to meet all of these requirements, the better. Similarly, the referee should be the person that has worked with the team recently (preferably in the past year) to ensure that their feedback is relevant to the research, and they also have fresh remembrance of the team of lawyers and their roles on the matter. The referees should also be a good mix of existing and new clients. Existing clients already know how the team works, would most likely be more familiar with the team members and may be more comfortable speaking about the team. Including new clients helps to add some diversity to the referee list and to ensure that the same list of names are not recycled year after year. 

Prior notice is key 

No one enjoys being barged with multiple emails about some research that they know nothing about. It is important to inform referees in advance or at the start of research so that they can expect to receive the emails from researchers and attend to them. Even if the referee is familiar with the directory and has been part of the research in past years, there is no harm in informing them that they will be contacted again, this time for the research.  

Remember to follow up 

It is not enough to inform the referee that they will be contacted, it is helpful that firms follow up with their referees to find out if they got the researchers’ emails and if they have provided feedback. By now, spam filters, firewall blocks should sound familiar as they almost always happen with some referees when they are contacted. Following up helps to know if there are such issues and helps to ensure that they get sorted on time. If the firm has subscribed to tools like the Chambers Referee Management Tool, it will be helpful to maximise the use of these tools to track the status of the referee feedback rates. There are times when it may be helpful to also follow up with researchers about referees, as researchers are busy, it is important to not overdo the follow up process. For our thoughts on the best approach to following up with referees and researchers, see here.

Always remember, written feedback is possible

Rather than not providing any feedback at all, you can encourage your busy referees to provide written feedback to the directories. Most directories provide surveys to referees, even where they request calls, they will most likely accommodate written feedback via surveys, questionnaires and even emails. Encourage your clients to explore this option where their schedule does not permit getting on calls within the timeframe of the research. 

Guidelines matter 

It is typical of directories to state the maximum number of referees that they want each firm to put forward for each practice area. It is important to comply with this instruction by ensuring that enough referees are put forward and that extras are not too much. Also, where, as with Chambers and Partners, there are specific instructions as to the number of referees each referring partner can put forward, it is important to comply with such instructions. This is to ensure that all referees are contacted for the purpose of the research, and some are not left out simply because some partners put forward more names than they should. 

Non-client referees

It is worthy of note that referees can be other people apart from clients. They can include lawyers on the same side (not at your firm), or on the other side of deals, third parties such as professionals advising on the same deals like accountants, tax advisers, etc., arbitrators, barristers, and so on. In deciding to put forward any non-client referee, it is important to inform them in advance and pay attention to their availability, familiarity with the matter and the team at the firm and other necessary points mentioned above. 

Running out of time? Your referee list can help out 

If you are ever running out of time with the submissions and research is about to start, uploading the referee list in the meantime helps to save the day. While you ask for that extension or try to get the submission done as quickly as possible, the uploaded referee list gives the researchers something to work with and they can contact referees already while awaiting the submission. 

Next time you are preparing a referee list for the purpose of a directory research, consider all the points above and see how helpful those referee comments can be for achieving your ranking goals. 

The post Referee Management 101 – For Chambers and other Directories (Tips from an ex-senior researcher at Chambers) appeared first on Tier One Rankings.