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.

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.

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.

The session covered both procedural updates and practical tips to help firms boost their visibility and rankings. We’ve compiled the key points from the webinar below.

Key Dates to Keep in Mind

Several important deadlines were emphasised during the webinar:

• Referee spreadsheet deadline: 4 August 2025 (critical for all regions, including the Nordics!)
• Submission deadline (for all EMEA countries): 4 August 2025
• Submission deadline (for the Nordics): 29 August 2025
• Research: begins in September 2025
• EMEA rankings publication: March 2026
• Embargoed rankings: shared one week prior to public release for subscribing firms

New Features in the Legal 500 Research Process

Legal 500 has introduced several enhancements to its research tools and rankings. A new “Leading Rankings Performers” table aggregates the top-performing law firms across jurisdictions and practice areas, eliminating the need for separate submissions for this accolade. 

The “Worldwide Ranking” category has also been launched, highlighting outstanding firms in key practice areas such as antitrust and intellectual property.

Another notable addition is the “Client Satisfaction” accolade, which recognises firms achieving the highest scores in client surveys.

Additionally, a comparative tool has been introduced, allowing firms and clients to benchmark performance across different rankings — a useful feature for firms looking to position themselves competitively.

How to Build a Strong Submission

One of the central messages from the webinar was the importance of building submissions that go beyond a simple list of matters, combining evidence with storytelling, demonstrating not just what was achieved, but why it matters to clients and to the wider market. 

To achieve this, firms should focus on several key elements:

• Tell your story
  A compelling submission should do more than present facts. It should highlight what sets the firm apart: client wins, unique areas of expertise, the pedigree of the team, and the strategic vision for the future. Legal 500 values submissions that help researchers understand the narrative behind the firm’s success, not just the outcome of individual matters.
• Include robust matter highlights
  The submission window for this cycle covers matters from August 2024 to August 2025. Legal 500 allows up to 20 matter highlights, and firms that provide fewer risk falling behind competitors who use the full allowance. These matters should reflect a mix of complexity, scale, and strategic importance, and — where possible — demonstrate the breadth of the firm’s practice.
• Tailor each submission
  Legal 500 recommends tailoring submissions for each practice area to reflect specialised teams and relevant client work. This level of detail should show researchers that the firm has dedicated resources and deep expertise in each discipline.
• Be strategic with lawyer bios
  Only include lawyers who spend at least 50% of their time in the relevant practice area and who are connected to the matters highlighted. This ensures the submission accurately represents the firm’s active talent pool and avoids diluting attention with irrelevant profiles.
• Address confidentiality proactively
  Confidential matters are treated equally to public ones, but Legal 500 recommends firms to share as much detail as possible. Providing meaningful context — even if anonymised — helps researchers understand the significance of the work without breaching client obligations.
• Use data to your advantage
  Researchers like to see quantifiable achievements in the submission so make sure to incorporate deal values, case statistics, and other measurable outcomes where and when possible. Concrete figures can elevate a submission from descriptive to persuasive.
• Engage with researchers through interviews
  Once the research list is published in September, firms are welcomed to contact the relevant research to arrange a 30-minute call, which the researcher will try to accommodate. These conversations provide an opportunity to clarify highlights, emphasise key matters, and ensure the submission is fully understood.
• Submit on time — every year
  Deadlines are non-negotiable. Late submissions or referee lists cannot be guaranteed review, which can undermine even the strongest content. It is also important that you submit every year, as failing to do so could result in being demoted if Legal 500 lacks information about your firm.

Maximising Referee Feedback

Referees remain a crucial aspect of the rankings process. While Legal 500 allows unlimited referees, firms are advised to provide at least 20 referees to ensure sufficient feedback is collected. The list can include a mix of clients, barristers, and co-counsel who are familiar with the firm’s work and can speak meaningfully about its strengths. Note that referees can be listed for various practice areas. 

Legal 500 stresses the importance of submitting them by the 4 August deadline, to make sure your referees will be contacted when the research starts. 

Referees should be notified in advance, as survey emails will come from editorial@legal500.com. If a referee fails to respond, a self-service form is available to address the issue.

Categories for Individual Recognition

The webinar’s hosts also reiterated the following definitions of their rankings:

• The Hall of Fame recognises lawyers widely regarded as leaders at the very top of the profession, with a long-standing track record of excellence. 
• Leading Partners are established market leaders with significant peer and client endorsements. 
• The Next Generation Partners category identifies rising stars, typically with five or fewer years at partner level, who have achieved recognition through leading roles on significant matters. 
• Finally, Leading Associates are associate-level lawyers frequently cited by clients and peers for their work on noteworthy cases.

Addressing Common Questions

The webinar also addressed frequently asked questions about the research process and made the following comments: 

• Any changes to confidentiality or team composition should be communicated as soon as possible to the relevant researcher.
• Firms requesting changes to their editorial content on the Legal 500 website must contact the designated editorial team rather than researchers directly. 
• Peer feedback (or Market feedback) is considered during the research process but does not determine rankings; instead, it helps researchers identify firms that may not yet be on their radar. 

Subscription Packages: Standard and Premium (see picture below)

Jordan Lincoln, Senior Business Development Manager at Legal 500, introduced us to the new two-tier subscription options, which we’ve summarised below.

The Standard package includes up to six client testimonials (compared to two for non-subscribers), along with twelve key clients and three work highlights. Firms under this package are also featured in the new firm comparison tool.

The Premium package builds on these features by allowing up to ten client testimonials, twenty key clients, and five work highlights. Premium subscribers gain access to historical editorial data across three editions and can provide real-time updates via Legal 500 Live. Premium subscribers also receive submission analysis reports. An additional benefit is the referee tracking tool, which allows firms to monitor response rates and add referees after the initial deadline.

We’ve included an image from the webinar that illustrates the differences between these packages.

Final Thoughts

The major takeaways from the webinar were clear: rankings are reassessed from scratch each year, so firms must submit annually and treat each cycle as an opportunity to demonstrate progress. High-quality submissions that are accurate, comprehensive, and timely remain the most critical factor in success. 

We hope this article has helped clarify what Legal 500 looks for. Our Tier One team recently hosted a webinar covering topics such as the submission process, referee management, selection criteria, etc. Our Submissions Consultant, Lena Martin, summarised the key takeaways in an article, which you can read by clicking here.

If you want to watch the Legal 500 recorded webinar click here.

The post Legal 500 EMEA Webinar – Our Recap appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

What Is Legal500 and How Are Rankings Determined?
The Legal500 is one of the world’s leading independent legal directories, covering
approximately 150 jurisdictions and ranking both law firms and individual lawyers.
Rankings are determined through a combination of:

• Casework submitted by the firm
• Team structure and overall strength
• Client and peer feedback
• Market presence and recognition

Unlike paid listings, these rankings are entirely research-based, making the quality and
presentation of submissions critical for success.

Why Work Highlights Are the Cornerstone of Your Submission
One message from the webinar was clear: work highlights carry the most weight in Legal500 assessments. Firms should prioritise:

• Selecting up to 20 significant matters (complex, innovative, high-impact).
• Applying the Five W’s Framework:
  Who: Identify the client and explain their significance (e.g., market position, prestige).
  What: Detail what your firm did for the client and the results achieved.
  Why: Explain why the matter stands out (novelty, complexity, precedent-setting impact).
  Where: Clarify where the matter was located and whether it was domestic or cross-border.
  When: Confirm relevance (ideally within the last 12 months).

Strategic curation is essential — highlight only the most impressive matters that showcase your firm’s depth and expertise.

Building a Stronger Submission: Beyond the Work Highlights

1. Demonstrate Team Depth and Track Record
Legal500 researchers want to see more than star individuals; they look for broad team capability. Show collaboration, leadership structure, and strengths across related practice areas.

2. Showcase Your Client Base
Diversity and quality of clients matter. A broad mix — buyers and sellers, multinational and niche players — strengthens your submission and demonstrates market relevance.

3. Acknowledge Market Presence
While peer reputation is not the top factor, consistent positive recognition from the market can reinforce your ranking prospects.

4. Getting Referee Strategy Right
Referee feedback underpins the submission’s credibility. Key considerations include:

• Quantity vs. Quality: Aim for 15–20 responses per practice area; more is fine, but meaningful feedback counts most.
• Referee Selection: Mix clients, peers, and third-party professionals who have worked with your team in the past 12 months.
• Set Realistic Expectations: Highly prestigious referees may be impressive on paper but less likely to respond — prioritise those who will engage.
• Confidentiality Assured: All feedback is anonymised before being incorporated into rankings.

Important Deadlines and Research Periods
For 2025, the EMEA Legal500 submission deadline is the 4th of August, with Nordic
countries following on the 29th of August. (IMPORTANT: The referee spreadsheet for Nordic countries should still be submitted on the 4th of August!) Late submissions may be considered for a short period after the deadline, but timely submission ensures full consideration. Research typically runs for around three months post-deadline — ensure referees are prepared to respond during this window.

Key Differences from Chambers
While both Legal500 and Chambers are respected directories, their methodologies differ:

• Legal500 emphasises work highlights, while Chambers prioritises referee feedback.
• Legal500 allows unlimited referees, unlike Chambers, which caps submissions.
• Referee outreach from Legal500 is centralised through a single email address (editorial@legal500.com), simplifying the process for firms and referees alike.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

• Submitting irrelevant or outdated matters outside the practice scope.
• Overloading submissions with excessive detail — clarity and conciseness are key.
• Neglecting to include junior talent or next-generation partners you wish to raise in profile.
• Assuming paid profiles or content collaborations with Legal500 influence rankings (they do not).

Small Firms Can Compete Too
An important takeaway: Legal500 assesses team quality relative to firm size. Even small practices with one or two standout lawyers can achieve rankings if their work demonstrates excellence and market impact.

Final Thoughts
Our webinar underscored that successful Legal500 submissions require a balanced approach: compelling work highlights, thoughtful referee selection, and clear demonstration of team and market strength. By focusing on these fundamentals, firms of all sizes can improve their chances of achieving or elevating their rankings.
For more guidance or support in preparing your next submission — from drafting work highlights to strategic referee selection — our team at Nishlis Legal Marketing is here to help!

To view the full webinar, click here (Password: OEKy#3&*)

The post Key Insights from Our Legal500 Webinar: How to Strengthen Your Directory Submissions appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

Let’s talk therefore today about tips for picking chapters and what the Insight report can and can’t do, to ensure you are getting the product you are expecting.

Tips for choosing chapters and practice areas

Focus on areas you have submitted to

You don’t have to be ranked in a table to buy Insight for it. However, you should really have submitted to it. Submissions and referee lists give Research extra information for their ranking decisions, which should enable a more detailed assessment of your performance compared with a report on an area you have not submitted to.

Consider regional before country/continent-wide

This is not a hard-and-fast rule, and any decisions will depend on the scale and scope of your practice. However, before settling on any country- or continent-wide chapters (e.g. Nationwide, Africa-wide, Europe-wide), it is important to know how these areas are researched and what content is included in them.

These chapters are standalone practice areas. Therefore, any analysis will be about a firm’s performance in that chapter rather than a detailed look at its local practices. References to regional practices will likely be in passing rather than in-depth.

Feedback could be minimal. Some, but not all, of these tables are based on existing research, and separate interviews are not therefore conducted. 

Tables could require extensive local footprints. Firms that are only in one jurisdiction or lack a prominent practice in one of the area’s major markets might struggle to break into these rankings.

In short, country- and continent-wide tables might not always be best for your circumstances, and a report into a local practice area might be more useful. However, each decision should always be handled on a case-by-case basis in conjunction with the Chambers Sales team.

Tips for a smooth experience

Be clear about which tables you want

Practice areas can be complicated at Chambers, with an array of parent and child tables to submit to. This helps Research capture the nuances of the market but can create uncertainty for Insight. Firms might therefore find it more straightforward to provide separate submissions whenever possible and to only order chapters that accept submissions.

An example of this might be submitting to and ordering TMT versus submitting to and ordering TMT: Data Protection, TMT: Media, and TMT: Telecommunications. If firms can’t be ranked in TMT, then there could be delays as Chambers gets in touch to determine which child table was meant. Additionally, Chambers might also request additional payment for the extra child tables, potentially souring the experience and resulting in a dislocation of expectations.

Submitting to and ordering each of the three child tables separately could avoid this, as the Insight team would know from the start which tables were expected, and firms would know what they have bought and will receive. Moreover, separate submissions allow firms to provide three sets of work highlights rather than splitting one set among three areas, enabling them to better showcase their activity.

Of course, not every parent-child split accepts separate submissions, but engaging when they do can help purchasers be clear about their order, providing certainty over expenditure, timeframes, and report makeup.

Understand the scope of the Insight report

Knowing what Insight does and does not offer can help set expectations and inform purchasing decisions before any contracts are signed, helping foster a more positive experience with the product.

Geographical scope. As touched upon earlier, chapters like Nationwide are standalone tables rather than cost-effective ways to gain analysis and feedback about all local practices. Feedback on and in-depth assessments of local practices will likely only be provided in local chapters.

Individual analyses. Firms unsurprisingly want to know how individuals can break into the tables. However, Research and Insight can often be limited in the amount of advice and detail they can give about unranked lawyers. First, the data might just not be there (if the lawyer wasn’t garnering much attention in interview or lacked evidence of work). Second, it is not always possible for Research to make detailed notes about all unranked lawyers, given the number of unranked names they process each year.

Therefore, when purchasing Insight, be aware that only lawyers who are ranked, who are considered internally as Potentials for a ranking, or who have lost their ranking or internal Potential designation this year will receive an analysis.

Nevertheless, there are steps you can take when submitting to increase the profile of other individuals whom you feel are deserving of consideration, which might in turn lead to progress within the Chambers ecosystem. Tier One Rankings is on hand to assist with this.

The post Making Your Insight Report Work for You appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

Chambers does offer solutions to this problem, front and centre being Insight, which it claims will provide you with “tailored guidance to improve your firm’s rankings.” This sounds promising, but what can you expect if you buy?

Let’s talk about this product in this forthcoming series of articles, starting with what an Insight report actually is and contains. Join me for the insight scoop.

What is Insight?

Insight is a bespoke, paid-for online business report that aims to give firms a clearer understanding of their performance in current research and, by extension, the rationale behind Chambers’ ranking decisions.

Firms can choose to purchase by guide and practice area, allowing them to tailor the size and focus of their order. For example, a firm could get a report on its entire practice, or on just the tables it wants to improve in, or on something in between.

Reports come in two varieties: the Client and Market Intelligence (CMI) report and the Client Intelligence (CI) report. But what is the difference in terms of content?

In short, the CMI has two main features a CI lacks: peer feedback and analysis of up to three other firms in the table in question. While these analyses do not divulge confidential information, they should shed light on what competitors are doing to earn their rankings.

What is included in an Insight report?

For the overall team:

For individuals who this year have or have lost a ranking or an internal Potential designation:

For individuals without a ranking in the last 2+ years:

*Please note, these features are new additions for Europe 2025 and beyond. As a result, there might be a bedding-in period while Chambers builds up the data sets that power them. Certain features might not initially be included in the final version of the Insight report if they are drawing on incomplete data sets.

Which one is right for me?

The choice of report type – or whether even to buy at all – will be a personal decision, informed by your department’s goals, budget, and intentions for the report. However, here are some possible uses and benefits for both products.

• Gain an understanding of what Chambers thinks are your team’s and individuals’ strengths and weaknesses. Understanding how Chambers views your performance can help you pinpoint and address perceived areas of weakness.
• Find out how your department might improve its performance. An Insight report’s recommendations for improvement can shed light on perceived successes or shortcomings in your work highlights and client response. Knowing this might provide clear pathways to stronger performances.
• See what clients are saying about your team and individuals. Feedback is anonymised, allowing clients to speak honestly and openly about their experiences and opinions. These comments highlight aspects of the service that clients highly value and areas they think could do with addressing. By knowing what clients think, you can enhance your offering.
• Obtain quotes for marketing purposes. As long as firms credit Chambers as the source, they can use any of the quotes in their Insight report for marketing, as testaments to their service standard.

CMI only

• Learn what the market thinks. Insight into how other firms perceive your practice might give you a better idea of how to market yourself to ensure you are always putting your best foot forward.
• Understand what competitors are doing differently or similarly. The analysis of other firms should shed light on what makes groups in higher tiers stand out. This can offer deeper insight into the factors underpinning these higher rankings.

Conclusion

Chambers offers two types of bespoke report for firms seeking to improve their rankings. Both the CI and the CMI provide insight into team and individual performances across Chambers’ research metrics and offer recommendations for improvement. However, the CMI goes further, for an added financial cost, providing customers with feedback from wider market sources and analysis of competitors’ strengths.

Neither report is necessary to attain or improve a Chambers ranking, but both can be a useful addition to a firm’s submission toolkit. By finding out what research thinks of your performance and where you are falling short, you can work to address these perceived weaknesses and present your practice to Chambers in the best light, which could in turn lead to progress within the guides.

About the Author: Robert Charters is a Legal Directories Editor at Tier One Rankings with a decade of experience as an editor and Principal Research Specialist on Chambers Insight.

The post The Insight Track to Improving Your Chambers Ranking appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

• How best to present your team’s work in submission documents.
• The referee process and how you can help improve response rates.
• The research process at the directories and how they make ranking decisions.
• Differences between the major directories and how to adapt a submission to each of them.
• Scoring system and three pillars of success.
• The key to getting individual rankings.
• Crafting the perfect work highlights, and much more.

This session will be a presentation covering the above, followed by a Q&A where our panel can address any issues you are experiencing.

Don’t miss this chance to elevate your submission strategies and boost your profile in the legal sector.Confirm your spot today as seating will be limited.

Confirm your spot today as seating is limited.

Date: June 10th. Time: 15:00-17:00. Location: Kinstellar offices, Palác Myslbek, Na Příkopě 19, 110 00 Prague 1. Link to register: Click here.

The post Prague Briefing: Legal Directories – Tips, Tricks and Insights appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

The session covered how to craft compelling submissions, manage the referee process, understand what researchers look for in making ranking decisions, and increase your chances of achieving a Band 1 ranking. Whether you’re a legal marketer, a lawyer, or a firm aiming to refine your approach, this webinar was packed with expert tips and actionable strategies. We were thrilled to see such a strong turnout and to receive so many engaging questions!

Below, you will find a summary of the key topics we covered during the live session, and a link to the webinar recording.

• We began by outlining the Chambers research cycle, which includes preparation, interviews, and final rankings. Preparation involves organizing spreadsheets and scheduling interviews. During the interview phase, researchers gather feedback from lawyers and clients. Finally, researchers assess submissions, score them internally, and recommend rankings. We will soon be publishing an article that explores this topic in greater depth!
  
• Submissions should focus on two things: the sophistication of the work and the depth of the team. Matters must be relevant to the practice area. Structure is essential – lead with impactful, high-value matters and explain why they stand out.
  
• Chambers uses internal scores (1–5) to evaluate work quality, client feedback, and team strength. Scores guide decisions but don’t dictate rankings outright. Researchers consider past performance and upward or downward trajectory.
  
• Referee feedback is crucial – accounting for over 50% of the ranking outcome. Choose referees who are available and familiar with your work, not just senior in title. Strong feedback is often the deciding factor for rising or new lawyers.
  
• Team representation must be strategic. Prioritize those actively working in the practice area. Co-led matters and the “Other Team Members” section can help spotlight juniors and up-and-coming talent. 
  
• Lawyer interviews help researchers gather market trends, team updates, and peer insights. Be constructive – avoid focusing solely on frustrations or undermining others. Use the call to build a relationship and clarify key points. 
  
• Matter descriptions should be concise yet informative. Avoid overly technical language, but include key legal elements when helpful.  
  
• Chambers does not currently use AI tools in its rankings. Submissions drafted with AI are acceptable, as long as the content is clear and well-written. However, referee quotes should be genuine and not AI-generated.
  
• There’s no fixed cap on the number of ranked lawyers from one firm, but balance is maintained across rankings. Give space to younger lawyers while continuing to support senior team members with a track record. 
  
• Confidential-only submissions are permitted and are treated equally. The only limitation is that Chambers cannot use them for editorial purposes. 

We hope these insights help refine your approach to submissions and rankings. A full Q&A article containing in-depth answers will be published soon on our website.  

Click here to see the full recording of the webinar. Password: 8ctZDa$%

The post Chambers Researchers’ Webinar – Key Takeaways  appeared first on Tier One Rankings.