The session featured Maria Barras, Chief Legal and Public Affairs Officer at Booking.com, and Lance Barthouw-Amius, General Counsel and Head of Legal Affairs Service at UNHCR, who shared their perspectives on how the role of in-house counsel is evolving, as well as their expectations of external law firms.

If you were unable to attend, we have summarised the key takeaways below.

Research overview

Chambers highlighted the continued growth in engagement across its research process.

Across all guides, more than 64,500 submissions were received, alongside over 90,000 interviews and more than 265,000 survey responses. For the Europe 2026 Guide specifically, over 11,500 submissions were received, with the final rankings including 1,645 law firms and 14,812 lawyers. In total, more than 13,700 interviews were conducted.

As highlighted during the webinar, it is this depth and consistency of research that allows Chambers to produce an accurate, year-on-year reflection of the legal markets it covers.

Updates to the Europe Guide

This year’s guide also includes several structural updates across jurisdictions.

In the Netherlands, Corporate M&A has been divided into three value-based tables. In Italy, standalone Litigation and Arbitration sections have been introduced, while in Spain, the Tax category now includes elite and higher regarded sub-tables.

All practice areas were reviewed based on the sophistication of work, team depth, client feedback and overall quality of service.

The evolving role of General Counsel

A key theme throughout the discussion was the increasing influence of in-house legal teams.

Maria Barras noted that, in both Europe and the US, between 70% and 85% of General Counsel now report directly to the CEO. This shift reflects the growing importance of legal within organisations and its closer alignment with business leadership.

She also highlighted a significant change in the composition of legal teams. Departments are becoming more multidisciplinary, incorporating a wider range of expertise beyond traditional legal roles. In her own team, approximately half are lawyers, while the other half include professionals from areas such as data, compliance and policy.

This reflects a broader shift in how legal departments operate, with responsibilities spanning value protection, business enablement and industry leadership.

Legal as a strategic function

The webinar also emphasised the increasingly strategic role of legal teams within organisations.

General Counsel are now more actively involved in leadership discussions and strategic planning. Being part of these conversations allows legal teams to contribute earlier in the decision-making process, helping shape strategy rather than simply reviewing it at a later stage.

This approach also helps position legal teams as enablers of the business, supporting execution rather than being perceived as a barrier.

The impact of AI

AI was another major focus of the discussion, with in-house teams already exploring its potential.

Maria Barras described how her team is actively experimenting with different tools and approaches, noting that this remains a period of exploration. She highlighted several key learnings:

• The importance of ongoing experimentation at both individual and team level
• The need to balance broad experimentation with focused, department-wide progress
• The role of AI in enhancing quality, not just improving efficiency
• A shift towards rethinking entire workflows, rather than simply automating individual tasks

Overall, AI was described as a catalyst for change, encouraging legal teams to rethink how they operate.

Expectations of law firms

The session also provided clear insight into what in-house counsel expect from external law firms.

Maria Barras emphasised the importance of receiving advice that supports decision-making, rather than advice that is overly cautious or difficult to apply in practice. She also noted that law firms should invest time in understanding the broader context in which their clients operate, including business priorities and strategic objectives.

Proactivity was another key theme. Law firms are expected to provide insights based on their wider market experience, helping clients understand how similar challenges are being addressed elsewhere.

More broadly, there is an expectation that law firms work closely with in-house teams, operating as a single, integrated team.

AI and law firms

AI is also shaping expectations of law firms.

From an in-house perspective, firms are expected to use these tools to improve speed of execution, deliver more data-driven insights and increase overall efficiency. At the same time, there is an expectation that firms are transparent about how AI is used and understand the associated risks.

The discussion also touched on the potential for AI to influence law firm business models, particularly in relation to pricing structures.

The UNHCR perspective

Lance Barthouw-Amius provided a perspective shaped by the unique environment in which UNHCR operates.

His team supports operations across multiple jurisdictions, often in complex and high-risk environments, where decisions need to be made quickly and based on imperfect information. This requires a highly practical, solution-oriented approach.

He highlighted several developments within his team, including increased legal sophistication, a growing focus on technology and AI, and stronger collaboration with law firms and private sector partners.

Working with law firms

From UNHCR’s perspective, strong partnerships with law firms are built on shared values and collaboration.

A genuine pro bono commitment is an important factor, but the focus is also on working together on matters that are strategically important. Law firms are expected to bring their full expertise to these engagements and to work as long-term partners.

Ongoing communication and feedback are also key to maintaining effective working relationships.

Final thoughts

The webinar highlighted how the role of in-house counsel continues to evolve.

Legal teams are becoming more influential, more integrated into business strategy and more open to new ways of working. As a result, expectations of law firms are also changing.

For firms looking to strengthen their position in legal directories, these insights provide a clear indication of what matters most to in-house clients today.

The post Webinar Watch: Chambers Europe 2026 Guide Launch appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

Progress on Representation and DEI

Improving the representation of women in rankings—alongside broader diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) concerns—remains a core priority for legal directories. Women still account for a minority of ranked lawyers globally, but progress continues at a steady pace. Recent guides show a continued incremental rise in the proportion of women recognised in individual rankings, building on year‑on‑year gains seen throughout the mid‑2020s. While the pace of change remains gradual, the consistency of this upward trend reflects sustained pressure from the profession and clients alike.

Directories are also increasingly analysing representation through a more nuanced lens, considering seniority, practice area disparities, and the pipeline from junior to leadership levels. This aligns with wider industry efforts to move beyond headline figures and address structural barriers to progression.

Alignment with Broader Industry Initiatives

These developments sit alongside a growing number of profession‑wide initiatives. In the UK, the Women in Law Pledgecontinues to encourage firms to set measurable gender diversity targets and report on progress, while in the US and other jurisdictions, organisations such as the Women in Law Empowerment Forum (WILEF) remain influential in benchmarking best practice for women in senior legal roles.

By 2026, pay transparency legislation in several jurisdictions and increased reporting requirements around workforce diversity have further sharpened focus on gender equity. Collectively, these initiatives aim to address persistent challenges including the gender pay gap, underrepresentation in leadership, and unequal access to high‑value work and sponsorship.

Initiatives by Legal Directories to Promote Women in Law

Legal directories have continued to evolve their own practices in response to these pressures:

• Dedicated Awards and Recognition: Chambers continues to recognise gender equity through its Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) Awards, which incorporate gender-focused categories within a broader framework. While Chambers previously ran Women in Law–branded awards, recognition is now embedded within its DEI programme, reflecting a more holistic approach to inclusion across the profession.
• Enhanced Diversity Metrics: Directories are placing greater emphasis on diversity data within submissions, encouraging firms to evidence inclusive cultures rather than relying solely on individual star performers. Categories such as Up & Coming and Rising Stars continue to play an important role in improving visibility for women earlier in their careers.
• Researcher Training and Bias Awareness: Ongoing and expanded training on implicit bias for researchers has become standard practice. In 2026, this increasingly includes guidance on intersectionality, helping researchers better assess feedback relating to women from underrepresented ethnic, socio‑economic, or neurodiverse backgrounds.
• Spotlights and Thought Leadership: Interviews, podcasts, and editorial features highlighting female legal leaders are now more closely tied to emerging themes such as legal technology, ESG, data regulation, and AI governance—areas where women are playing an increasingly visible role.

Women in Business Law (WIBL) Awards

The Women in Business Law Awards, organised by Euromoney Legal Media Group, continue to recognise leading women lawyers and law firms demonstrating meaningful commitment to diversity and inclusion. By 2026, the awards place greater emphasis on measurable impact—such as promotion rates, retention, and sponsorship outcomes—rather than policy statements alone.

Recent Developments and Trends

• Pipeline Strength: Women continue to represent a strong majority of law students in many jurisdictions, reinforcing optimism around the future talent pipeline, while attention has shifted toward retention and advancement at mid‑career and partnership levels.
• Leadership Visibility: High‑profile appointments of women to senior judicial, regulatory, and political legal roles over the past two years have reinforced the importance of visible leadership in driving cultural change across the profession.
• Innovation and Emerging Practice Areas: Awards and rankings in 2025 and early 2026 increasingly highlight women leading in areas such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, life sciences regulation, and climate‑related advisory work, reflecting the expanding influence of women in shaping the future of legal services.

Strategies for Women to Leverage Legal Directories

Women lawyers seeking recognition can continue to use directories strategically:

1. Build Compelling Submissions
   Clearly articulate leadership and impact. Use decisive, action‑oriented language—such as initiated, led, pioneered, or negotiated—and avoid minimising contributions.
2. Maximise Visibility
   Highlight speaking engagements, published thought leadership, media commentary, and internal leadership roles to demonstrate expertise beyond case work.
3. Emphasise DEI Contributions
   Where relevant, include mentoring, sponsorship, and involvement in DEI initiatives, particularly those with measurable outcomes.
4. Engage with Directory Communities
   Participation in directory‑hosted events, roundtables, and research briefings can strengthen professional networks and improve understanding of ranking criteria.
5. Seek Mentorship and Sponsorship
   Learning from peers and leaders who have successfully navigated the submissions process remains a valuable way to build confidence and strategic insight.

Impact of Recognition in Legal Directories

Recognition in leading legal directories continues to carry significant professional value. For women lawyers, it can enhance credibility with clients, support promotion and lateral opportunities, and reinforce visibility as a leader within a firm and the wider market.

Conclusion

As of 2026, legal directories remain powerful instruments for promoting women in law, but their role is increasingly sophisticated—moving beyond recognition alone to influencing behaviour, accountability, and cultural change. By engaging strategically with these platforms, women lawyers can strengthen their professional profiles, help reshape industry norms, and contribute to a more inclusive and representative legal profession.

The post Empowering Women in Law: Navigating Legal Directories for Recognition and Growth appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

We’re pleased to share that Alek Tomasevic, Head of USA Research Development at Chambers, will join as a special guest panelist for the live Q&A.

The program will include a focused presentation by Chris Lahr, former Chambers editor and Senior Consultant at Tier One Rankings, sharing insider perspective on what distinguishes top-ranked firms and lawyers — followed by a live Q&A discussion with Alek.

Agenda
8:30–9:00am – Light breakfast
9:00–10:00am – Short presentation followed by Q&A
10:00–10:30am – Networking

Key topics include:

• How directories evaluate submissions and determine rankings
• What strong submissions look like in practice (and common pitfalls to avoid)
• How to support individual rankings and referee engagement
• How to present matters and highlights clearly, credibly, and persuasively

Registration is required, seating is limited.

Tuesday, March 3 | 9:00–11:00am

Herrick, Feinstein LLP (Herrick) offices | 2 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Registration: Click here.
For more details, contact Chris@nishlis.com

The post Legal Directories: Inside the Rankings Process (NYC Briefing)  appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

The webinar consisted of a panel that discussed some of Chambers’ major findings from its 2025-6 research and what are of the major trends and challenges that law firms face on an international scale. The panel was hosted by journalist Catherine Baksi, and was made up of:

• Vian Chowdhury, Head of Global International Capabilities at Chambers
• Ollie Dimsdale, Head of Africa, Middle East, Caribbean & Offshore at Chambers
• James Hanratty, General Counsel for Trainline
• Renato Leitie Monteiro, Vice President of Privacy, Data Protection, AI & IP at e&

Research findings: Global trends

• Global M&A saw strong growth in 2025, with total deal value hitting around $4.8 trillion USD. This represents an increase of around 40% compared to last year. There was a particular increase in high-end deals, ie those valued at above $5 billion USD. North America made up over 50% of these transactions, whilst the Asia-Pacific region hit a record of around $1 billion USD.
• Disputes were particularly driven by issues relating to energy, climate change and sanctions. Class actions particularly surged, with settlements reaching $79 billion in the USA alone. International arbitration has also seen major developments, such as recent changes to the UK’s Arbitration Act and a new arbitration law in China.
• In-house counsel are increasingly using AI tools to improve their operations. The primary concerns this year have evolved beyond the design and implementation of these tools, and are now more focussed on ensuring they provide correct evaluations, eliminating hallucinations and verifying output.

Research findings: The Middle East

• The UAE and Saudi Arabia continue to attract international law firms, with several recently opening up in Riyadh, Dubai and Abu Dhabi (including Reed Smith, Gowling, Mischon de Reya and Stephenson Harwood.)
• Chambers’ ranking for Saudi in particular has expanded rapidly, with a new Projects & Energy table introduced and Dispute Resolution now split into Arbitration and Litigation. 
• Chambers coverage of the UAE has also expanded significantly, most notably in its Financial Services Regulation and TMT tables.

Research findings: Africa

• Regulatory change has been a major theme in Africa research this year. Notable examples include major changes to tax legislation in Nigeria and amendments to South Africa’s Black Economic Empowerment policy.
• Chambers’ African coverage has expanded in a few areas. In particular, Uganda and Botswana rankings have changed from a single General Business Law table to separate Corporate/Commercial and Dispute Resolution tables.

Regulatory complexity

The panel discussed in particular the development of more complex regulatory regimes and the geopolitical pressures they are experiencing. For example, the EU’s Digital Markets Act has aimed to create a free and fair digital market across Europe, but whilst it has in some cases moved to enforce against big tech to achieve this, in other cases it has been hesitant to do so, most likely due to certain geopolitical pressures. This risks creating uncertainty for businesses looking to expand and invest in Europe.

AI development

With many regions of the world involved in developing more powerful models of AI, the Middle East is seeking to position itself as a middle ground where both AI development and more sophisticated regulation are being taken up. Virtually all major organisations in technology are heavily investing in AI development, but there is increasing interest in forming a responsible AI framework. The panellists discussed how to make the best use of AI by integrating it into the culture of an organisation. Questions around the usage of AI now falls into three broad categories:

• How to embed AI into a company’s products?
• How to respond to changes in the digital ecosystem caused by AI? For example the increase in initial searches through tools such as ChatGPT instead of traditional search engines.
• How to improve productivity and effectiveness through AI.

How law firms are using AI

The panellists noted that there has not yet been a revolutionary change in the way legal services are being provided due to AI, either in terms of the products provided or the fees being charged. They encouraged firms to take control of the conversation and discuss with clients how AI could be actively implemented to improve their services. So far, firms are mostly interested in developing AI tools for internal use, and they should remain conscious of ensuring that none of this technology is implemented without human oversight. Given the position of expertise that law firms now have with these tools, they can also actively educate clients on their usage and how best to use them. The panellists also noted a potential future challenge with training and developing younger lawyers if simpler, entry-level tasks are to be completely automated.

ESG

Many companies are very vocal about their dedication to ESG matters and a lower carbon economy, but the panel noted that lawyers are in a crucial position to translate this into actionable change. Businesses are increasingly building ESG goals into their KPIs, particularly in the Middle East where climate impact is anticipated to be high. On this matter, law firms can greatly assist their clients by giving an up-to-date picture on the changing regulations and opinion of governments. Providing that strategic market understanding is crucial for businesses to align their approach and set climate targets. The ability for law firms to provide this service is becoming a greater factor in the procurement process for many major businesses. As General Counsels are typically at the forefront of driving for ESG, they expect external counsel to be a partner on this front. It was noted that UK firms are particularly strong in terms of ESG, especially in terms of net-zero commitments.

What GCs expect from external counsel

The panel ended with a discussion of how law firms can best help their in-house counsel and provide the strongest service. With businesses expecting firms to be familiar with technology and helping to educate them on how to use it, firms  need to think of themselves as tech experts. Businesses are also looking for proactive advice on how to power themselves further, not just to reactively deal with issues as they appear. Finally, as legal teams are likely to see more budget constraints over 2026, there will likely be increasing interest in alternative fee arrangements. This will be particularly true in markets such as the Middle East which are becoming more crowded and therefore more competitive. In these markets, law firms offering an associate on secondment is becoming a typical practice to make the gap between law firm and client more seamless.

The post Chambers Global 2026 – Guide Launch Webinar appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

Here’s our no-fluff breakdown of what actually matters, and what you should be thinking about now.

What’s the Biggest Change This Year?

For the first time, firms will submit a single, unified research form covering both:

• IFLR1000 rankings, and
• IFLR Awards

This means:

• No more separate rankings and awards submissions
• Matters included in your research form can now be flagged directly for awards consideration
• Less duplication, more strategic planning

Takeaway: You’ll want to think about rankings and awards together from the outset—especially when selecting deals.

Are the Practice Areas the Same as Last Year?

Not exactly—and this is an important one to double-check.

The most notable update is the expansion of the traditional Banking category into Banking & Finance, which now explicitly includes:

• Traditional banking work
• Project finance
• Asset finance
• Financial services regulatory matters

This change also means:

• New ranking tables in certain European jurisdictions
• In some jurisdictions, previously separate practice areas have been combined
• In others, firms may still have the option to submit under two separate sub-categories

Takeaway: Don’t assume last year’s structure applies. Always review the practice areas for your specific jurisdiction before submitting.

What If I Only Want to Submit for the Awards?

You still can.

Awards-only submissions remain possible, and the form is flexible if rankings aren’t your focus this year.

If you’re submitting just for awards:

• Focus primarily on deal highlights
• Keep the practice description and lawyer sections light
• Simply tick “Yes” in the awards nomination box

A few key rules to keep in mind:

• All matters submitted for awards must be publishable
• You may nominate up to three matters for awards consideration

Takeaway: Even an awards-only submission benefits from a clean, compelling narrative—just without the full rankings depth.

IFLR1000 Has Capped Referees at 15—Does This Affect Rankings?

Short answer: No.

While the maximum number of referees has been reduced to 15:

• Referee feedback will be weighted the same way as in previous years
• There’s no change to how rankings are calculated

Takeaway: Quality over quantity still applies. Choose referees strategically.

Should I Nominate Lawyers Who Are Already Ranked?

Generally, no.

Lawyers who are already ranked do not need to be re-nominated unless:

• They are seeking a change in ranking, for example:
  • Highly Regarded → Market Leader

Takeaway: Use your nominations to promote lawyers who are not already ranked and to increase bench strength.

Is There a Limit on Lawyer Nominations?

Yes—and this is another area where precision matters.

You may nominate:

• Up to 5 lawyers total across:
  • Market Leader
  • Highly Regarded
  • Women Leaders
• Up to 3 lawyers for:
  • Rising Star Partner
  • Rising Star

Takeaway: Be intentional. Over-nominating isn’t an option.

Can I Submit by Email?

Nope.

All submissions must be made exclusively through the IFLR1000 portal. No email submissions are accepted—no exceptions.

Are There Other Ways to Nominate Lawyers?

Yes!

The Lawyers Survey will open in March, allowing:

• Self-nominations
• Peer nominations

This is separate from the firm submission and can be a useful supplementary channel.

Takeaway: Don’t overlook the Lawyers Survey—it’s an additional opportunity to reinforce visibility. You can use it to add names that weren’t included in the submission due to space constraints or to further highlight those who were.

Final Thought

This year’s changes are clearly aimed at streamlining the process—but they also reward firms that plan early and submit strategically. Between the unified form, evolving practice areas, and tighter nomination limits, a thoughtful approach matters more than ever.

The post IFLR1000 2026: Key Takeaways from This Year’s Webinar appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

Not to ruin it for you, we placed the answers at the end.

Deadlines:

1. Late submissions can have a negative impact on rankings.
2. It is critical to send the referees on time. 

Submissions and individual rankings:

3. If a partner has the strongest work in the submission, they can be ranked without referee feedback.
4. If there are over 20 matters in a submission, the directories will not read the extra matters.
5. Achieving a ranking for individual lawyers is not affected by other lawyer rankings within the same team.
6. There is a quota of up to 5 partners ranked per practice per firm. 
7. Lawyer bios are crucial in the submission form because they determine the individual rankings.
8. Including as many lawyer bios as possible in the submission document is an advantage.

Referee feedback:

9. If a competitor law firm puts down a referee I also want to put down, Chambers will only contact them once. 
10. The average referee response rate to Chambers is 25%.
11. Referee feedback is the most important factor when ranking a firm in Chambers.

And finally…

12. Buying more products offered by the directories increases my chances of improving my rankings.

***

ANSWERS

1. TRUE. Whilst being a day or a week late will not have any real impact, being significantly late with a submission may affect the process of contacting referees. Submissions that are months late may fall outside of the window for research altogether, in which case the directories will be unable to accept a submission until the next research cycle.

2. TRUE. If referees are submitted after research has actively begun, the directories will have less time to get in touch with them and receive your feedback. Legal 500 is particularly keen to ensure referees are received on time because they will send out their first contact to all referees on email at the same time at the very beginning of their research period. Any late referees that miss this first connection might not be contacted further.

3. FALSE. The directories greatly value referee feedback to confirm what they read in the submissions, particularly Chambers. If a lawyer has excellent work but no referee feedback, the directories will likely note their potential and hold their ranking for a year to find out more about them in the next cycle.

4. TRUE. Whilst adding 1-2 extra matters won’t have a serious impact, if a researcher finds a submission that is 25-30 matters long (or even longer!), they are trained to read just the first 20 matters. This is to keep the process equitable so that no firm gets to present more information than others.

5. TRUE. All lawyers are judged independently of each other and are assessed by the amount and quality of their work in the submission and feedback they receive. Firms should however consider the balance of work between the lawyers they would like to see ranked, as partners with a greater amount of higher quality work have a stronger chance of ranking.

6. FALSE. None of the directories set a hard limit to the number of partners ranked in a practice area. However, because the space provided by submission documents is limited, it can become harder to balance the work highlights the more ranked lawyers a team has so that everyone has enough evidence.

7. FALSE. Individual rankings are primarily determined by the work highlights that a lawyer appears on and the quality of that work. The lawyer bios can provide some useful context, but they are a much less significant part of the submission document when it comes to deciding rankings.

8. FALSE. Whilst giving fair credit to all of your lawyers can show the depth of your team, it can also make it harder for the researcher to determine which individuals they should consider for a ranking. We would recommend just including bios for lawyers who feature heavily in the work highlights and that your team would like the researchers to consider.

9. TRUE. Researchers at Chambers will cover all firms that the same referee has been nominated to speak about at the same time. For this reason, we recommend submitting all your referee lists on the first Chambers deadline so that your team does not miss out if a referee are contacted earlier than scheduled to discuss other law firms.

10. FALSE. The average response rate across all sectors and guides in Chambers is closer to 35%, although this rate is increasing since the introduction of the Research Management Tool. This means that achieving responses of 40% or higher in a particular section will be in a good position to improve their rankings.

11. TRUE. The most significant difference between Chambers and Legal 500 is that Chambers values referee feedback the most, whereas Legal 500 is primarily led by the evidence in the submission.

12. FALSE. The big reputable directories are explicitly not pay-to-play. They recognise that the integrity of their rankings is vital, and so their research teams continue to be separated from their commercial activities.

The post Test Yourself – How Prepared for 2026 Submissions? appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

Given the significance of this move, we caught up with The Legal 500 team to understand what this integration means for law firms, how it will influence visibility and analytics, and what practical benefits firms can expect.

Q How will Mondaq analytics influence rankings, if at all?

Legal 500: There are no immediate plans to incorporate content-engagement data into Legal 500 research methodology. However, Mondaq’s sizeable reach into the buy-side of the legal services market will extend Legal 500’s ability to collect benchmarking data.

Q What new visibility pathways will firms actually gain?

Legal 500: The intention is that all Mondaq content will be available on the Legal 500 platform, increasing exposure and delivering enhanced value for law firm subscribers and in-house counsel users.

Q Will there be a unified analytics or benchmarking dashboard for firms?

Legal 500: Yes. Legal 500 is quickly evolving into a must-have data and intelligence platform. The Mondaq acquisition will only accelerate that progression through the leveraging of their innovative data technologies. Legal 500 data and analysis will also be served at other key points of use – in CRM, RFP and other enterprise-grade applications used by law firms and corporate counsel. Generally, this service will be made available as part of the subscription packages.

Q Is there anything else of value for law firms of all sizes to know?

Legal 500: Legal 500 is a trusted source of global research and data on law firms, lawyers and their clients. The acquisition of Mondaq directly benefits law firms by giving them access to a uniquely powerful platform that combines Legal 500’s benchmarking data with Mondaq’s AI-enabled intelligence, readership analytics, and thought leadership distribution.

As a result, law firms can now gain deeper insights into client needs, market trends, and competitor positioning, while also amplifying their own expertise to a global audience of over a million registered users in the context of Legal 500’s world-leading market analysis and rankings.

With enhanced visibility, richer analytics, and intelligence across jurisdictions, law firms can strengthen client relationships, identify new business opportunities, and support and inform business development and revenue growth strategy more effectively. Here, at Tier One, we feel like this is a real turning point in how firms should communicate. Content can’t just be “nice to have” anymore – it has to work hard for you, rise above the noise, reflect what you truly know, and speak directly to the issues and concerns your clients have. This is especially when insights, rankings and accolades go together

The post What the Legal 500-Mondaq Deal Means appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

The launch is, of course, a time to celebrate the great achievements of our colleagues. In some respects, it also marks the start of the next research cycle (to anyone who joined my webinar on elevating submissions through analysis, your analysis time starts here!).

This year’s launch also gave us some fascinating insights into what general counsel are looking for and how current trends are shaping clients’ needs when it comes to external legal providers. As part of the launch event, Chambers Asia-Pacific Research Director Sarah Kogan spoke to Kenji Tagaya, Head of Legal and Secretariat Division at Jera, and Rishi Gautam, Global General Counsel at Tata Consumer Products.

Here are the key takeaways from their conversations, as well as some facts about the 2026 guide and the forthcoming 2027 research.

• The expectations on GCs have changed.
  Both Mr Tagaya and Mr Gautam noted how GCs are no longer supporting players who simply think about business risks and compliance. Now, they have to think about how to be business-enablers and strategic partners to business as well – or “finding ways to say yes in a responsible manner,” as Mr Gautam put it.

• GCs’ expectations of external counsel are changing.
  As GCs are expected to now be strategic partners, so too are external counsel expected to be strategic advisors. Mr Tagaya noted how law firms need to be able to be sounding boards and providers of high-level strategic advice. Mr Gautam emphasised the need for tailored solutions that work not only for the client but also for other parties involved in the matter.
  
  For example, in an M&A, Mr Gautam said how successfully completing the acquisition is only half the battle; the other, equally critical part is successfully integrating the target and its people.

• GCs are looking for solutions in what are challenging regulatory environments.
  Both Mr Tagaya and Mr Gautam referenced the regulatory changes and unforeseen events that have occurred in the last few years – things like tariffs and sanctions and policy changes in light of concerns over energy security.
  
  For Mr Tagaya, he wants external counsel to be capable of keeping up with the pace of change, especially when there are time pressures and not a single solution to the problem. Straightforward legal interpretation alone is not enough, in his view. For Mr Gautam, he views external counsel as a thought leader or steward for explaining ever-evolving, complex regulatory mandates to business.

• AI is changing the market…
  Both GCs have been seeing increased use of AI when it comes to legal advice. The technology is being used for things like online searches and legal research, simple answers, basic drafting, and document review.

• …but GCs are still conscious of the power of old-style legal consultations.
  While Mr Gautam acknowledges the efficiencies and cost/time savings that AI, can bring (and expects these efficiencies to be passed on to the client), he remains cautious, noting that the technology is still at an early stage and prone to mistakes.
  
  “We wouldn’t want [hallucination] to happen with us at any cost,” he said. “Credibility of the legal advice and credibility of the work product is a no-compromise for us.”
  
  For both him and Mr Tagaya, human interaction remains key. Mr Gautam is looking for assurances from legal providers that when AI is involved, external counsel will ensure that confidential material remains confidential and any AI output is checked and verified by a human. Mr Tagaya asserts that truly strategic advice can only be gained from interacting with external legal counsel.

• A strong existing relationship can be an initial advantage.
  When it comes to selecting external counsel to provide consultations and assist with complex situations, there was a clear preference for already trusted firms – even over brand names.
  
  Both GCs noted that an existing relationship enables nimble responses, as clients don’t need to spend time teaching external counsel about their business. And counsel without that background can often be of limited use in business procedures that require a patient and nuanced understanding of various aspects: cultural, administrative, financial, etc.
  
  Mr Tagaya and Mr Gautam also spoke about the trust and understanding of clients’ ways of working that can be built up through multiple interactions, which can give a client confidence in exceptional and challenging situations.

• GCs are concerned about the evolving business environment.
  With an array of external (and often unanticipated and unbudgeted-for) factors impacting clients’ day-to-day working – such as regulatory challenges, evolving customer demands, and various different but important stakeholders to satisfy – it is likely that there is no one single solution for the issues businesses face. Instead, in-house counsel want to see an honest effort and a certain degree of nimbleness to be able to work around the emerging situations that happen.

On Chambers Asia-Pacific research

• Chambers reiterated the importance of client opinions, calling them “central to our research methodology” and emphasising that Research seeks to understand the market by learning what clients consider key priorities when instructing outside counsel.
• Chambers utilises similar criteria when ranking lawyers and seeks to highlight where they have demonstrated excellence in their expertise, recent work, and client service.

Chambers will be sharing later a further document with greater details regarding the Research team’s insights regarding market trends, as well as more information on how the guide has been updated in this new release.

Asia-Pacific 2026 research stats

The 2026 guide consists of 3,993 department rankings and 7,173 lawyer rankings (of which 438 are Up-and-coming Individuals or Associates to Watch). Research received over 5,300 submissions and conducted over 22,000 surveys and over 5,000 telephone interviews.

The submissions and research enabled an updated set of rankings to be produced and the introduction of new market coverage. Specifically, Chambers introduced new tables for:

• Asia-Pacific Region, International Arbitration – The Bar 
• Australia, Media & Defamation: The Bar
• Japan, Shipping
• Indonesia, Startups & Emerging Companies

Asia-Pacific 2027

Research for Asia-Pacific runs from  February  to  August, and submissions for the 2027 Asia-Pacific Guide are open. The next deadline is 21 January 2026.

You can view the full schedule  here.

Please note that the referee limit for Chambers Asia-Pacific is 30 per practice area.

The post Webinar Watch: Chambers Asia-Pacific Guide 2026 appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

1. An analysis is worth doing in order to set strategy and correct any inefficiencies that might have arisen previously.

By understanding what the team is lacking in the eyes of Research, and by seeing what higher ranked firms are doing well, we can try and tailor the next submission to tick the boxes that Research wants.

2. Paid-for tools like Chambers Insight of Legal 500’s Insight Essentials are simple ways to get this analysis.

The directories do all the hard work of compiling the insights and then present actionable tips for improvement. There is no guessing about what Research wants. However, these are expensive products.

If you are interested in buying but the budget only stretches so far, you might consider the following strategies:

• Buy a report for your chosen practice area(s) every two years – the insights you learn can likely still be applied the following year
• Only buy Chambers one year and then only buy Legal 500 the next – the insights you learn can likely still be applied the following year.
• Focus on buying reports where the lawyers are particularly unhappy with their ranking – the additional insight could be a difference maker.
• Focus on buying reports for areas in which the team has maintained the same ranking for 3+ years – the directories rarely promote in consecutive years. The first year after promotion will usually be about consolidating the new ranking, which can be done by doing similar things to the previous year; a paid-for report is not likely necessary.

3. A free analysis can be conducted by reading through and noting trends in the directories’ editorial and practice area definitions.

By seeing what work and clients the firms in the tier above are being praised for, we can gain insight into what plays well with Research.

It is best to do this analysis for the firms in the tier above (rather than several tiers higher) because promotions are typically one tier at a time, so it makes more sense to look at trends in the band you’re most likely to enter.

A similar analysis can be carried out on the practice area definitions, to ensure the submission is only including work that Research wants to see. This should make it easier for the Researcher to assess the quality of work highlights being put forward.

It is important that any material used for a free analysis comes directly from the directories, as this comes directly from Research and should accurately reflect what Research wants to see.

4. AI tools can be used

It is important to be aware of your company’s AI-use policy and the AI’s own data-privacy policy, but if you have permission to use AI on company data, it can be a useful tool. Potential use cases include:

• Analysing the submission to see if the content covers the trends identified in your analysis.
• Tackling the matter descriptions, to make them easily digestible to a non-expert Researcher who might not have much time to read a long description.
• Handling the lawyer bios, because Research only checks them briefly (and usually for editorial purposes), so it might be better to let AI handle this and have the lawyers focus more time on the work highlights.

5. Acting on an analysis can strengthen ranking or promotion prospects

An analysis of competitors allows you to draw comparisons with them that are, importantly, backed up by facts set out by the directories themselves. If a higher ranked firm is praised in editorial for handling a $1 billion transaction, and you have multiple ten-figure transactions of your own, it is easier to draw an argument like: “Research, you, praise this billion-dollar transaction for this firm, we’re doing the same sort of work, so perhaps we deserve a comparable ranking.”

In addition, by acting on an analysis, it is possible to show progression, which can in turn lead to positive impressions and upwards momentum. For example, if the firm has been hampered by a lack of IP disputes in the IP section and then shows it is now doing IP disputes and IP transactions, this can be presented as growth and a strengthening practice.

6. The best time to do an analysis is between the next guide launch and the relevant submission deadline.

This is because the latest insights (from the paid products and in terms of editorial) won’t be released until guide launch, so waiting allows you to work with the most up-to-date information.

However, it is also possible to do an analysis shortly after submitting – this can be crucial if the time between guide launch and submission deadline is very tight. The information might not be the most up to date but will still be relevant and can provide extra datapoints about what Research likes.

If you have any questions, our team is here to help!

The post Summary of the “Elevating Submissions Through Ranking Analysis” webinar appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

Reviewing the last submission cycle

Our first recommendation is to hold a review of your previous submissions process. Now is the time to look over at things that did or did not work well over 2025. Given the volume of submissions and numerous deadlines through the year, staying organised across the whole cycle and meeting deadlines is vital to ensure that there are not any knock-on effects to submissions that are next due.

• How easy was it to gather and organise all the necessary information? How strong is your process in adapting the information into the various submission templates?
• Was partner approval a straightforward process? Can this process be meaningfully streamlined Ideally for the partners, their input should be made as efficient as possible so they are not spending more time than necessary.
• Were deadlines met? Did you experience any significant delays in a particular submission, and did this affect any other submissions? Could more time be afforded to any submissions that proved a problem?
• How are your team’s rankings performing vs your targets?

Hold a session to break down the rankings and note where the improvements were. Don’t forget to celebrate your successes as much as identifying things to improve!

Prioritising submissions

Thinking ahead to when the submissions cycle fully kicks into gear in early 2026, a crucial question to ask yourself is what resources you have available, and therefore how many submissions you can dedicate to.

One strategy is to consider which directories you would like to prioritise. Many firms try to submit to as many directories as possible, but it is an equally valid strategy to opt for fewer directories and instead focus your efforts on a few high-quality submissions. Alternatively, for directories that are less of a priority, it may be more efficient to just adapt that submission from another that you have worked on in more detail.

There is also the question of whether your firm has broken into a ranking table that you have submitted to, or even if you have ever submitted to that area before. Submitting to a new area will require working completely from scratch, which will likely take more time than an established submission.

You may also wish to pay extra attention to rankings where you believe the firm is under ranked. If for example you have a new practice area with a young team, it is unlikely you will be ranked in the very first cycle. Your goal this year is instead to to start building your reputation in that area with the directories and lay the groundwork for a ranking in the near future.

Reviewing key market trends and competitive analysis

In order to develop a strategy to get yourself noted in the rankings, we would recommend taking a review for each of your submissions on what were the key market trends in that practice. The directories monitor what is going on in the markets and weight their rankings towards types of work
that have been particularly strong that year.

Therefore, consider what has recently dominated your particular market, and then think about to what extent your practice has been part of that trend. When it comes to the submission, you can then align matters to those trends. This will help to demonstrate that your firm is top of the market and that you’re actually part of the trend, not just chasing it.

Another approach we would recommend at this stage is a comparative analysis with your targets vs where similar firms are ranked. For example, seeing how competitors fare in the rankings, looking at their editorial provided by the directories and how that writeup fits with market trends. The editorial that competitors receive should help to give you an idea about why they have succeeded in achieving a high ranking by detailing their main areas of focus. This is a great approach that our team members with BD experience really recommend.

Preparing to select matters

You can also prepare by starting to gather the necessary information for submissions next year. The best place to start is your previous submission document. We often describe submissions as ‘living’ documents: they are rarely rewritten from scratch every year, but instead are often adapted, updated and honed over time.

Given the number of submissions that are made for a single practice area over a year, it is advisable to start with your previous draft and including new information from there. Remember that matters that have completed 12 months before the submission deadline should now be replaced with newer work. For matters that are ongoing, they can still be included but they should be updated to discuss the most recent developments (they should not just be directly cut from the last submission.)

It may be that you already have a number of new matters that you’re considering for your next submission. When selecting matters, the golden rule is to keep it simple and just select the most impressive, most significant work that your team has acted on. Beyond that rule, the lawyers that you would like to showcase in the submission should all have a strong presence in the work highlights. Partners that you would like to see ranked should be appearing on at least 2-3 matters.

The other main issue to consider is how best to present your team’s strengths as a whole. If the firm is well known for a very particular area of work within that practice area, then the submission should reflect that, as long as you are still keeping space for other types of work to prove the full extent of your practice.

Capturing data

For every matter you are considering for submissions, make sure you have all of the following information on this checklist:

• A description of the matter, including:
  • A brief summary of the matter
  • What the team worked on specifically
  • Why this matter is important
• The client’s name
• The value of the matter
• The team members that acted on the matter
• The date the matter closed or if it is ongoing
• Other law firms that acted on the matter and their role

Capturing this data alongside press releases is often a good approach, because those releases typically contain much of the necessary information. We would also suggest that if a matter could be included in more than one submission, this should be clearly noted now as it will make building your submissions much easier.

In situations where any of the information you need is currently missing, we would recommend making a note of what will need to be added when it comes to writing the submission in full. While it is possible to quickly contact a partner to confirm, we find that it can be very easy to end up in unnecessary back- and-forth correspondence over fine detail, which can be a problem if that partners’ time is limited.

Partner involvement and approval

Speaking of partner involvement, it’s important to consider how to get the most out of the lawyers’ time when working on a particular submission. There are a few ways to make efficiencies in the time needed for partners to review and approve a submission document. Details that usually require help from partners include:

• Adding missing information
• Checking confidentiality of a certain matter
• Selecting particular matters to include

To avoid lengthy correspondence across the team on these matters, we would recommend noting these issues for now so that when it’s time to drafting the submission, they can all be addressed simultaneously. This will allow partners to tackle all these issues at the same time and make their task of knowing what to add much easier.

In submissions for big departments where several lawyers are involved, nominating one partner who is interested in the directories process and giving them full authority to approve that submission could be the best course of action.

In submissions where handling confidential information is a greater concern, now is also the time to seek permission from that client to include them. Getting these matters cleared now will considerably speed up the process of writing submissions later down the line. This is also a good time to ask clients for permission over whether they can be included as referees.

Submission deadlines and building a schedule

Finally, now is the time to build a schedule of deadlines so that you are prepared with the right resources at the right time.

The directories generally launch their guides and set deadlines at around the same time of the year, though we would note that the exact deadlines are usually confirmed 1-2 months in advance and they can be subject to change. We would recommend setting regular reminders so that you can confirm what the exact deadlines are and to commence work for those submissions.

Conclusion

To summarise all our key tips, the key tasks to complete now are:

• Review your process from last year to identify successes and improvements.
• Decide what to submit, and which submissions to prioritise.
• Capture as much data as you can, and identify where you will need more information.
• Seek client’s permission to include their work or act as referees.
• Build a schedule based on rough deadlines.

For each submission, keep thinking about your core strategy: what are your goals, how does this compare to other firms, which lawyers do you want to highlight and how does your work fit into the year’s trends? With all of these ideas in mind, you will be well placed to succeed.

–

If you’ve found this article insighful, you might want to read Laurence’s latest article Trends in directories: What is changing and what to look out for by clicking here.

The post How to prepare for the next directories cycle appeared first on Tier One Rankings.