There can be times however when a researcher struggles to get in touch with a particular referee. Their emails may bounce or be caught in spam filters for example, or their contact details may not be updated- sometimes an email can just be missed by that referee. To help ensure that your firm is getting as much feedback as possible, this is what we recommend if you experience any issues:

• When research begins, notify all of your referees to expect emails from Chambers. (The research schedule will note when it begins and can be found here: https://chambers.com/about-us/research-schedule/ ) Chambers will always get in touch by email first, either with a survey or an invitation to a phone interview.
• If you have access to the Research Management Tool, you can check it regularly to update on progress. If there are particular problems with a certain referee, the RMT will flag them and offer advice on what to do.
• If a referee has been flagged as ‘Unsubscribed’ by the RMT, this means that referee has signified to Chambers that they do not want to receive any of their correspondence, in which case a researcher will not reach out to them. This can be remedied by forwarding written consent from the referee to the researcher. They can then get in touch with that referee as normal.
• If a referee notes that they have not received Chambers’ correspondence, we do not recommend just asking the researcher to send another email. It will likely be an ineffective approach, because any further emails could suffer from the same issue that the first one did (whatever that issue may be, eg spam filter, bouncing back or being accidentally missed.)
• Instead, we would recommend that around one week after research starts, follow up with referees encouraging them to respond to the Chambers researcher. Your email should note that if they have not heard from Chambers, they can reach out to the researcher directly providing their feedback about the firm and lawyers. You can also include the researcher’s email address in this reminder.
• To save time and back and forth, the referee can just put their thoughts into an email and send it straight to the researcher- alternatively, they can get in touch and ask the researcher for a questionnaire.
• Research typically closes around 4 weeks after it begins, so all feedback should be sent in by then (larger sections may have longer research windows.)

The post How to handle issues with referees during Chambers research appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

Perhaps the most common error a Chambers researcher will encounter when reading submissions is where a firm has provided excessive  reams of information. These issues can include too many work highlights, or individual highlights running for multiple pages. Often a lot of this information is impenetrable and goes far too close into the fine technical detail. When determining rankings, researchers typically take ten to fifteen minutes reading and analysing each submission. Therefore, anything that makes it difficult to quickly comprehend the information is often a pet peeve for researchers. The ideal length of a work highlight is one side of A4, which means that the matter description should be around two to three paragraphs. It’s very rare for a matter to genuinely require more space than this.

Providing too little information.

Ironically, this issue is typically the next most common problem with submissions! The submission document is ultimately a balancing act; the document is designed to be a specific length so that a researcher can make a reasoned decision on the quality of that firm in a reasonable amount of time. Whilst matter summaries should be succinct, providing just one or two sentences is likely not enough to fully understand what the matter is about. Furthermore, if a firm is unable to provide 20 work highlights, researchers will likely conclude that it is not acting on enough significant work to warrant a ranking.

Adding extra matters outside of work highlights.

A technique often used by firms to circumvent the limits of the submission document is to group together multiple matters into a single work highlight. For example, grouping any work done for the same client or the same type of work being collated together. Grouping a few related matters together like this is acceptable, but this technique should not be used to abuse the document and filling it up with an excessive number of additional matters. The work highlights should ideally remain just one page of A4. Furthermore, listing additional work in other areas such as lawyer bios or team summary should also be avoided beyond quick headlines.

Getting the wrong focus on certain lawyers.

One of the most challenging aspects of writing a strong submission that achieves a firm’s aims is in providing enough coverage around individual lawyers. As space is limited, it’s common for some lawyers to present more evidence to the disadvantage of others. One effective workaround is to list all lawyers who were involved in each work highlight to give them due credit for the same matter. Lawyers who are already ranked should continue to demonstrate a good stream of work (at least 2-3 work highlights), but when it comes to unranked lawyers, firms should consider who they want to focus on supporting and provide them with the most support both in terms of the submission and the number of referees.

Using hyperbolic language.

Sometimes firms are prone to using superlatives in order to promote some of the work they present (for example, describing a deal as ‘one of the best in the market’ without elaborating on why.) Researchers are trained to look beyond ‘marketing speak’ and just drill down into the facts of the evidence. The evidence that a firm presents should be allowed to speak for itself.

Ignoring or mishandling the feedback section.

Section C2 on the Chambers submission offers firms the opportunity to comment on the existing rankings and how accurate they believe current coverage is. Firms often instead use the space to express frustration about rankings without any constructive feedback. This can instead be used as a chance for a firm to describe why they are underranked and where they believe the current coverage is going wrong, or by drawing comparisons to firms in higher bands. These insights will both get the firm’s point across and provide insight that researchers will find helpful.

Misunderstanding the confidential/publishable format of the submission template.

The standard template on a Chambers submission contains space for both publishable and confidential information in order to allow firms to confidently share any sensitive data without any risk of publication. This template includes 10 publishable matters and 10 confidential, and firms often interpret this as needing to specifically include this number of each. In reality, as much or as little confidential information can be included, and the template can be adapted to include more or fewer sensitive matters.

Mislabelling confidential information.

It’s surprisingly common for the same information in a submission to be variously labelled as publishable or confidential in different parts of the submissions. Matter values, client names and other specific details are often affected by this. Whilst this doesn’t affect ranking decisions, it is significant in writing editorial, as researchers will not include information that is at any point labelled as confidential.

Bios.

It’s common for lawyers to cut and paste their bios directly into this space, when a link to their website will provide the same information. The bio space is best used to provide a very brief summary of what that lawyer’s particular strengths are and a few headline achievements.

Quoting rankings in other directories as evidence.

Chambers does acknowledge data from third parties such as press releases or data from Mergermarket. However, notes about rankings in other directories are usually disregarded by researchers. The methodology of directories varies slightly, so it should be anticipated that they produce slightly different results.

The post 10 Common Mistakes in Submissions appeared first on Tier One Rankings.