On 28th April, we conducted a webinar regarding the internal ranking process at Chambers & Partners. The webinar was hosted by Blessing Adeagbo and Lena Martin, moderated by Laurence Mussett, and featured guest speaker Ana Licurci, Research Manager at Chambers & Partners.

We were delighted to see such a high level of attendance. Thank you again to everyone who joined us! As always, to ensure no one misses out, we’ve put together the key takeaways from the session.

Who This Article Is For

• Law firm marketing and business development teams
• Partners preparing Chambers submissions
• Firms aiming to improve or secure Chambers rankings

Quick Overview

The webinar began with an overview of Chambers’ submission process, including important 2026 deadlines, key ranking components, and what firms need to know to succeed. This was followed by a focused session on how to write compelling work highlights and what strong client feedback looks like, along with additional practical tips. 

We concluded with a live Q&A session and we were very excited to receive an overwhelming number of questions. For those that we were not able to answer in the session, we have given our responses to the remaining queries at the end of this article.

Upcoming 2026 dates

Understanding the Chambers & Partners Research Process

Chambers & Partners research is structured in 5 key phases, which the researcher will have to go through each time they are researching a practice area. 

1. Preparation – Researchers meet with ranking editors to discuss market trends, recent developments, and objectives for the upcoming research (table refinement, new subtables, etc.).
2. Interviews – Researchers speak with lawyers and clients to collect feedback via calls or surveys.
3. Ranking – All the information gathered is analysed by the researcher, including submission as well as feedback from peers and clients.
4. Editorial – The researcher will select quotes from clients, and matter examples and will check that the description of the firm/lawyer is still accurate. 
5. Publication – After internal review, guides are published.

Tips: 

• Submissions are assessed annually, so consistency in both performance and participation is essential. 
• Submit referees on time to ensure they are contacted when the research starts. Be sure to send them your own reminders as this vastly improves the chance that they will respond.
• Make sure the lawyers are available to the researcher for calls

Key Criteria Behind Chambers Rankings

Chambers rankings are based on four key factors: 

1. Work highlights: The researcher will assess the sophistication of the matters submitting using the submission.
   → What does sophistication actually entail? This term refers to the complexity, scale, or strategic importance of your work. Factors include:

• The prominence of the client or transaction in the market
• Legal or jurisdictional complexities involved
• Novel issues handled, or innovative approaches
• The firm’s specific role and impact on the outcome

Note: Matters don’t have simply to be the highest-value deals; complex regulatory or cross-border work can be equally impressive, as are those that are very unusual or set precedent. Those factors really depend on the practice area. 

2. Referee feedback: What your referees say about you in surveys or interviews. Strong client feedback can have a significant impact on rankings, particularly when a researcher is undecided about a potential promotion.
3. Bench strength (for firms) and individual involvement (for lawyers): The researcher assesses the depth and quality of the team, or how actively a lawyer contributes to matters. 
4. Finally, market feedback: What peers say about a lawyer or a firm. It has the least weight but can still influence decisions if consistently positive or negative.

Tips: 

• Write matters clearly, concisely, and easy to understand (max. 1 page)
• Focus on quality: the submission allows for 20 matters, so be sure to focus on your strongest work.
• Showcase new work where possible and add clear updates if using matters that have appeared recently.
• Complete as many fields as possible where feasible for confidential matters and only use N/A when strictly necessary
• Include lawyers from other departments where relevant to help show your bench strength, especially for co-led or cross-practice matters.

How to Write Strong Work Highlights for Chambers Submissions

A well-structured matter description helps researchers quickly understand the importance of your work.

We recommend the following structure:

1. The client is identified clearly and concisely. Don’t assume the researcher knows every market player— adding brief context helps them understand both the matter and its significance.
2. The transaction is clearly explained and outlines the firm’s role and key responsibilities (current and ongoing). 
3. The firm highlights why the deal is complex, impactful, or significant—making clear why it deserves inclusion. This is crucial, as excessive or overly technical detail can obscure what the matter’s impact was.
4. A closing sentence highlighting why the matter shows the firm’s strengths. This can help underscore the strength of the deal. 

Tips: 

• Keep work highlights concise and impactful, ideally within one page per matter. 
• It’s also fine to include confidential matters: Chambers handles all data with care, and confidentiality does not make a matter any less strong or valuable.

What about matter values? 

Matter value is not always decisive, but it can provide useful context. Below are some tips:

• Use the correct value: Showcase the matter/transaction value, not the enterprise value.
• Value is a good indicator, but it isn’t everything: Don’t exclude matters just because the value is lower—complexity, jurisdictional challenges, or client importance can make them equally significant.
• Highlight broader complexity: Emphasise what makes the matter notable beyond value (e.g. legal difficulty, strategic importance, timing).
• Include values where possible: It’s better to include a matter than omit it, as each adds to the overall picture.
• Handle confidentiality smartly: If exact figures are sensitive, provide a value range instead.
• Consider practice area differences: In areas like disputes, value may matter less, but including it where possible still helps give context.

How to Secure Strong Referee Feedback for Chambers

Referee feedback is one of the most influential ranking factors, often carrying even more weight than work highlights.

Tips:

• Choose referees who are responsive and available, not just the most senior.
• Prepare them by explaining Chambers’ role and expectations, so they don’t mistake outreach for spam.
• Encourage written responses if calls aren’t possible. Feedback in any form counts.
• Spread referees strategically, so that newer partners receive exposure and are well positioned for consideration too. 
• Never “coach” referees, but ensure they understand what Chambers is looking for. The main themes to their feedback should be the firm’s quality of advice, commercial awareness, and sophistication of service. 

Consistent, positive feedback over multiple cycles signals reliability and will therefore lead to new or improved rankings.

Demonstrating Bench Strength in Chambers Submissions

Chambers looks beyond individual partners.

To demonstrate strength:

• Include a range of lawyers across seniority levels
• Highlight collaboration across teams and jurisdictions
• Show continuity and depth within your practice

Consistency in Chambers Submissions Matters

Skipping a year or submitting partial information can negatively affect rankings. Chambers really values steady participation and evidence of ongoing excellence — not sporadic peaks.
If a ranked lawyer isn’t included in a submission, Chambers will monitor their performance the following year before making any ranking changes.

Final Thoughts

To stand out in your submissions to Chambers going forward:

• Submit every year
• Keep matters current (12-15 months max.), clear and easy to understand
• Make sure you explain why the matter is important/complex/challenging etc. 
• Prioritise available and willing referees above all others.

Remaining Q&A questions: 

1. I have observed through the last years that Chambers send the questionnaires to selected referees – not all. Does it go in stages or just a part of all referees provided by a law firm?

Usually, referees are contacted around the same time, whether for calls or surveys. However, in larger sections, outreach may be staggered.

The split between survey and call invitations can vary. Typically, call invites are sent to referees with a higher number of referrals, while surveys go to the rest. Some sections may follow a 50/50 split, but this is flexible. 

It is at the researcher’s discretion who they invite to calls, but ultimately Chambers will try to speak to as many referees via phone interview as possible.

2. What if a matter is very sensitive and barely any information can be shared?

If you already have enough strong matters, it may not be necessary to include it. However, if the client is notable, you can still list them in the confidential client section (Section E0) to demonstrate that you act for them.

You’re always welcome to include clients in the confidential section—Chambers treats this information seriously, and confidentiality does not weaken the strength of your submission.

Consider whether you have enough disclosable information to give the researcher a fair impression of what the matter was and why it was important. If you do not have enough information, you may wish to consider including other matters.

3. I would like to understand how we should reflect a situation where we handle multiple engagements for a single client — for example, an ongoing general advisory mandate alongside a new, distinct matter. Should these be listed as separate entries within the same client reference, or is there a preferred format for combining them into one submission?

We usually recommend listing all the deals you’ve handled for a single client under one matter description, but it’s important to clearly distinguish between different engagements—for example, ongoing advisory work versus a specific litigation matter. This approach also helps free up space to highlight work for other clients.

4. I had the benefit of going through a survey with a lawyer and I notice that the questions aren’t the same as these. Are these specifically the questions that would be asked in an interview?

The sample questions shown during the webinar reflect the general theme of the questions that referees would typically be asked on calls and in surveys/questionnaires. They will likely be questions that researchers will ask in phone interviews. The questions may not be in the same exact words as in the surveys, but the general ideas that Chambers & Partners want to find out about are the same.

5. Is it better to have referees who can speak specifically to matters that we have submitted? Sometimes we need to drop matters because others are more impressive but the referee is still one that we would like to put forward. Is it stronger to have the referees that can talk to the specific matters that we do select for consistency?

Referees do not necessarily need to align with specific matters. This is encouraged where possible, as researchers can then corroborate a matter in the submission with feedback from someone else who worked on it. However, if the firm has a solid referee who is likely to respond and provide helpful feedback, the referee should not be dropped simply because their matter is not featured on the submission.

6. It was mentioned that the “referring lawyer” column in the referee spreadsheet is helpful, but that’s only relevant for referees who have calls with Chambers right? Most referees receive a survey and in that case that column is irrelevant.

Yes, referees who receive surveys are required to select lawyers from a dropdown menu. However, the “referring lawyer” field should always be completed if possible because they are helpful to researchers when they conduct phone interviews

7. Is it worth describing in the work highlight who worked on the case, given that the team composition is already included in the dedicated row? Isn’t it a waste of characters?

While completing the dedicated field in the work highlight form is crucial, also indicating which lawyers or teams worked on specific aspects of a matter can help clarify roles and responsibilities—especially when multiple partners are involved across different departments, or when you are aiming to have a particular lawyer recognised.

In short, this is optional, but worthwhile if you have the space and a clear reason to mention specific lawyers during the matter description.

8. Given the form encourages us not to just submit lawyer bios that are already available on the website, what are things that can be added to lawyer bios would catch the eyes of Chambers?

We recommend including a hyperlink to the website bio within the individual’s name.

A strong bio should ideally be structured within 150–200 words and include: a brief overview of expertise and education, key track record highlights, ongoing or recent major work, notable publications (if relevant), and a clear indication of where you believe the individual should be ranked.

9. Is it possible to include some confidential details in a disclosable work highlight? If yes, how? Putting sensitive information in red ? Or when in doubt just put it in the non-publishable work? (Some elements of our transactions are public while some aspects we worked on are confidential).

Where a matter combines publishable and non-publishable elements, the matter can be included in the publishable section with the non-publishable aspects written in red font. However, if by nature, the matter is very sensitive and has more confidential aspects, it may be helpful to have the matter in the confidential section. As mentioned earlier, Chambers pays equal attention to publishable and confidential matters.

The post Webinar Recap: Chambers & Partners Research Process – Key Insights, Submission Tips & Ranking Strategies 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.

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.