• Confirm practice area definition + submission window dates
• Identify your target outcome (maintain band, move up, launch new team, add individuals) using Chambers Analytics if available. 
• Build a draft matter longlist (2–3x more than you’ll submit), then prioritize
• Decide the narrative theme (e.g., cross-border strength, sector leadership, complex mandates, growth)

B) Matter selection (what makes the cut)

For each shortlisted matter, confirm:

• Fits the definition (not “adjacent”)
• Shows sophistication/complexity (novel issues, high stakes, multi-party, multi-jurisdiction) or for transactional practices (e.g., M&A), demonstrates high value/strategic importance (deal value where appropriate, market impact, or transformational nature)
• Demonstrates your role clearly (what you led/delivered)
• Has verifiable proof points (milestones, outcomes, deal size/value if relevant, filings, decisions)
• Supports bench strength (more than one name appears meaningfully)

C) Matter write-up template (use every time)

Use the 5 Ws in ~5–8 lines:

• Who is the client (and why they matter)
• What happened + what you did (your role)
• Why it matters (impact, novelty, complexity, precedent, risk)
• Where (jurisdictions / cross-border)
• When (confirm timeframe + key milestone)

Final pass

• Can a non-lawyer understand it in 20 seconds?
• Any jargon removed or explained?
• No “marketing adjectives” without evidence

D) Referee plan (the controllable lever)

• Select referees for responsiveness + willingness (not just seniority)
• Get consent + confirm preferred contact details
• Brief them with: 2–3 bullet reminders of the work + what feedback themes matter
• Track who reliably responds for next cycle using the Referee Management Tool 
• Plan around Chambers re-contact window (~3 months): avoid over-using the same people across staggered deadlines

E) Team + individuals (visibility with proof)

• Ensure key individuals appear in matters (not just bios)
• Include a short, evidence-based team summary: breadth, leadership, growth, differentiators

F) Confidential matters (if names/details are restricted)

• Use a high-quality descriptor (industry/size/role) instead of name
• Provide as much detail as allowed: jurisdiction, complexity, outcome/milestones, your role
• Avoid vague statements (“major client,” “significant matter”) without specifics

G) Final QA (submit-ready checks)

• Everything aligns to definition + timeframe
• Strongest matters first
• No duplicate/overlapping matters unless clearly differentiated
• Proofread for consistency: dates, parties, spelling, roles
• One person sanity-checks it for clarity (someone not on the matter)

The post Directory Submission Checklist (Chambers/Legal 500/IFLR) appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

With that in mind, we caught up with Antony Cooke, Director of Data Innovation and Strategy at Legal 500, to understand a few points:

What was the thinking behind positioning the Client Service Accolades and Net-Promoter Scores® as a separate product from the core Legal 500 rankings?

The accolades are directly visible alongside the rankings, and can be used to filter search results. The rankings are the universally acknowledged measure of overall capability. They’re the sum of everything we know about the team, shortlisted as our recommendation to in-house counsel. But for a market becoming more critical over procurement decisions, we want to respond to that with a more nuanced picture of capability and offering. Awarding accolades on four new metrics supports GCs in making more informed, data-led decisions.

The research underpinning these accolades does feature among the inputs in our ranking decisions, so it’s not quite a separate product but more, a new way to recognise excellence alongside the rankings, the client testimonials, work highlights and the Legal 500 independent review.

How do you see the Client Service Accolades evolving over time, and what will clearly distinguish them from the rankings in terms of methodology and intended use for firms and clients?

This first release is the tip of the iceberg. Our goal is to be as useful a decision-making tool as we can be to in-house counsel. When our research team assesses a law firm’s capabilities, we consider data on multiple dimensions, qualitative and quantitative. We want corporate counsel to be able to tap into that methodology – for them to interrogate our data and analysis by what matters the most to them. These new accolades are a milestone for Legal 500, but there will be more to come.

Could you share more detail on how the client satisfaction accolades are compiled, and whether they may support more advanced search or filtering for users over time?

The accolades are built exclusively on quantitative data. Our client referee quant research started in 2018, establishing the global benchmark for client service and Net-Promoter Score® for the legal industry. Until this year, we hadn’t made this granular benchmarking public, but it gave us time to build confidence in the power of the data set and test its validity.

Today, over 200,000 client referees rate their experiences with their firms on multiple points of value. The themes we present online – Lawyer & Team Quality, Billing & Efficiency, Sector Knowledge – are built on a range of thematic questions that measure the firm’s performance in those three areas.

We then put the data through rigorous significance and validation testing before consideration for usage. Legal 500 fully recognises the high standards lawyers hold themselves to, so in generating the accolades our policy is to recognise relative excellence – that in a market created by natural high-performers, there is a handful of firms deserving of a special mention. So the accolades we publish truly represent the pinnacle of an already impressive pool of candidates for the qualities that clients care about.

Given that Chambers places strong emphasis on referee interviews, while Legal 500 has traditionally focused on substantive work highlights, how should firms best understand the role and weight of client satisfaction within Legal 500’s overall research model?

The client satisfaction research has become a more prominent feature of Legal 500’s research as our data set has grown and demonstrated its power.

Submissions and interviews play an essential role in helping the research team identify the nature and capabilities of each team in the market, while the quantitative research validates our findings and provides a further benchmark for objective comparability. For our research to be robust – to help GCs make the very best decisions they can – we insist on building multiple data sources into our assessment.

The post What Comes After Rankings? Legal 500 on Client Service, Data, and Trust appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

Some important dates reminders first

• The submission deadline is March 13, 2026 (for all regions).
• Practitioner survey deadline: June 12, 2026
• Client feedback survey deadline: July 10, 2026
• Research results published:
  • Europe and Middle East – October 2026
  • Americas and Asia Pacific – November 2026
  • Africa – April 2027

What’s new?

The 2027 submission form has been updated. As a result:

• You will now submit one unified research form covering both ITR Rankings and ITR Awards. Within each matter description, you can indicate whether you would like the matter to be considered for awards.
• Submissions in alternative formats will no longer be accepted. Only the official 2027 submission form will be considered.
• The time period for submitted matters is now clearly stated at the start of the form.
• The “Key individuals” section has been renamed “Key practitioners”, with no substantive change to the information required.
• The matter section requests largely the same information as before, but it is now recommended to specify whether a matter is cross-border.
• The 2027 submission covers a significantly wider range of topics, including CSR/ESG, DEI, technology solutions, innovation, compliance & reporting, tax policy & pro bono work, and global mobility & incentives – mostly relevant for awards consideration.

In short: the new form is unified, more structured, and more detailed.

What does it means concretely: The new form requires broader, firm-wide strategic information than the previous version and will therefore require additional time and internal collaboration from your team.

Submission

• Matters are the primary source of information on deals for researchers.
• Ongoing matters are permitted. Be sure to include key dates and clearly explain what work was carried out during the current research year.
• Matters should be complete, concise, and detailed, clearly explaining the firm’s role, the complexity of the work, and evidence of consistent growth over time.
• Matters are assessed based on complexity, innovation, and jurisdictional or regional impact -> Tier 1 firms are expected to demonstrate leadership at both national and international levels, particularly in cross-border tax matters.
• Avoid generic descriptions. Focus on why the matter is important or novel within your jurisdiction.
• The final question in each matter (“Explain why you chose to highlight this matter?”) is often omitted but is important as it helps analysts who may not be familiar with your local market.
  • For example: Was it the first ruling of its kind? A landmark court decision?
• Strong matter should clearly outline the dispute or advisory context, specific legal, tax, or valuation issues, timelines, and innovative or impactful outcomes -> Be explicit about what tax work was actually done.
• Firms may submit up to 15 matters per practice area per form.
  • Firms active across multiple practice areas may submit one form covering multiple practice areas, or submit separate forms, each with up to 15 matters.
  • -> Submitting separate forms is recommended for larger teams to better showcase breadth and depth.
  • -> Smaller firms should focus on their strongest matters and can do so by submitting 3-4 matters per practice area or include them all in a single submission.
  • If submitting one combined form, aim for 3-4 matters per practice area.
• One matter per client is recommended.
• The same matter may be reused across two different specialised practice areas, as long as it is relevant.
• Ensure that individuals you want ranked are listed as in Section 1, and featured in the submitted matters in Section 2. -> Key practitioners should appear consistently across matters to demonstrate genuine involvement and maintain credibility.
• Researchers assess firms on a rolling 3-5 year history, so consistent submissions are strongly encouraged rather than one-off participation.
• The DEI section does not impact your rankings.

Referees

• There is no limit on the number of referees you may submit.
• All referees will be contacted, and firms will be notified before ITR reaches out to clients.
• For confidentiality and integrity, firms are not copied on referee emails, and don’t receive the survey link.
• Firms should encourage referees to whitelist ITR emails to avoid delivery issues.
• Quality matters more than quantity! Try to submit relevant, high-quality referees, and confirm their willingness to participate. -> A smaller group of engaged referees who respond to surveys or interviews leads to stronger feedback and better ranking outcomes.
• Referees do not need to be directly linked to a specific matter, but alignment between referees and highlighted cases improves the quality of feedback.
• The client referee survey focuses on general impressions of the firm, which helps analysts assess reputation and client satisfaction.
• Referee titles do not affect the weight of feedback, but firms should include roles or positions for context.

Awards

• Rankings and awards rely on the same submitted matters, eliminating the need for separate award submissions. Additional interviews or follow-up questions may be requested if needed.
• Matters considered for awards must be publishable cases or deals, and have had a significant market impact, either due to size, value, or precedent.
• Awards are available across multiple categories, including transfer pricing, indirect tax, CSR, disputes and litigation, etc.
• DEI considerations are important for awards for the regional DEI Firm of the year.

Additional Helpful Information

• Extensions may be granted on an ad hoc basis if requested by email.
• Practitioner and client feedback surveys are expected to go live in April, after submission deadlines and any extensions.
• Firms can expect to be contacted in April.
• Firms with specific questions or those seeking submission guidance are encouraged to email the researcher directly to arrange one-on-one calls for future improvement.

Here are some helpful links:

• If you need a refresher on their methodology, click here.
• Need to check the ranking description? Click here.
• Need to check the practice area definitions? Click here.
• If you want to watch the entire recorded webinar, click here.
• A previous webinar held on November 19, 2025, walked through all sections of the research form in detail. You can access it here.

The post ITR World Tax Webinar – Key Takeaways appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

Here are some of the key points we covered:

• Work highlights carry the most weight in Legal 500 submissions. While referee and market feedback can help justify a ranking, they hold less influence than the quality and substance of the matters you present.
• Researchers will assess your firm’s overall team strength and depth of capability, not just your star partners. Be sure to reflect this by highlighting a broad range of lawyers involved in matters, as well as any firms you’ve collaborated with.
• Present a strong and diverse client roster to showcase the breadth and quality of your practice.
• Be strategic and concise when describing matters. Clearly explain why each piece of work is complex, innovative, and impactful.
• Secure referee consent in advance and keep them informed when the research process begins. Ask them to whitelist Legal 500’s email addresses to ensure they receive the requests. Choose referees who are available and responsive, regardless of seniority.
• Watch out for updates in practice areas and terminology (https://www.legal500.com/the-legal-500-submission-information/europe-middle-east-africa-emea-submissions/). Legal 500 periodically introduces changes, so stay informed to ensure alignment

A question came up in the chat that we didn’t address at the time—regarding where Of Counsel can be ranked in Legal 500 submissions. Legal500 tries to align counsels with the experience levels typically reflected in the individual categories. For instance, an Of Counsel with 10–20 years’ experience would be considered for the Leading Individual or Next Generation Partner categories, rather than Leading Associate. Conversely, a more junior counsel may be considered for Leading Associate. 

We recommend that the firm nominate the individual for the category that best reflects their experience, and the editorial team will then assess the suitability accordingly.

Click here to watch the full recording of the webinar (Passcode: OEKy#3&*)

The post Legal 500 – Expert tips for the EMEA deadline – Follow Up appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

In light of the recent escalation in Israel, Tier One Rankings have reached out to Chambers and Partners to ask if they will be able to make any adjustments to its approach its currently ongoing research. As a result, Chambers have now made the following announcement about their research schedule, showing a flexible and empathetic approach toward the affected legal community.

Acknowledgement of the Current Situation

Chambers has expressed concern for those impacted and extended hopes for a swift resolution to the crisis. While it is committed to maintaining a full research agenda and will aim to complete its research cycle this year, it has recognised the unique challenges currently facing Israeli law firms and legal professionals.

Revised Research Timeline

To accommodate disruptions, Chambers will delay the start of research for key practice areas in Israel:

• Corporate/M&A, White-Collar Crime, and Dispute Resolution (including Class Actions): Research will now begin on July 7, 2025.
• Projects & Energy and Environment: Research is scheduled to commence on July 21, 2025.
• Other Israel Sections: These will begin in late July to early August, with no changes anticipated at this time.

Referee Outreach and Ranking Considerations

Understanding the potential for delays in referee feedback, Chambers is considering broader use of surveys and is prepared to accommodate lower-than-usual response rates. They have assured firms that these challenges will be taken into account when finalising rankings.

Commitment to Monitoring the Situation

Chambers reaffirmed its commitment to closely monitor developments and will adapt further if necessary. The team emphasised its readiness to maintain open communication with firms throughout the process.

This move reflects a sensitive and proactive stance during a difficult period, reinforcing Chambers and Partners’ commitment to fairness and collaboration.

The post Chambers and Partners Adjusts Israel Research Schedule Amid Ongoing Situation appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

The post London Legal Marketing Happy Hour appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

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

Availability trumps popularity 

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

Familiarity over seniority 

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

Prior notice is key 

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

Remember to follow up 

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

Always remember, written feedback is possible

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

Guidelines matter 

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

Non-client referees

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

Running out of time? Your referee list can help out 

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

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

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

Ranking Statistics: Key Figures Across Jurisdictions

Spain demonstrated an 8% increase in ranked departments, bringing the total to 684. The rankings expanded to include 11 new firms, with 1,539 individual lawyer rankings, including 63 star associates. Additionally, there was a notable 9% rise in junior partners ranked, bringing the count of up-and-comers to 85.

Romania increased to 134 department rankings and 246 lawyer rankings. The country now leads Europe in female lawyer representation, with 53% of its ranked lawyers being women.

The Benelux region saw department rankings rise from 720 to 778, and the number of ranked firms grew from 188 to 200. Austria’s department rankings expanded from 228 to 253, while Switzerland’s rankings increased from 209 to 223.

Competition law rankings saw slight growth, with 649 submissions, 445 departments across 298 firms, and 877 ranked lawyers, including 83 new individuals entering the rankings.

Spain and Romania: Market Growth and Notable Developments

Key market trends in Spain include growing interest from Latin American investors, evolving regulatory developments, and Barcelona’s rise as a technology hub, although Madrid remains the country’s dominant legal market. Significant structural updates to the rankings were also introduced, including the separation of arbitration and litigation tables in dispute resolution, the launch of the first-ever ESG rankings table, and the opening of submissions for a new transportation table.

Romania’s legal market has seen notable expansion in corporate M&A, competition law, and dispute resolution, reinforcing its growing regional influence.

Benelux, Austria, and Switzerland: Regional Market Shifts

In the Netherlands, standalone tables for arbitration and litigation were introduced, while mass torts emerged as a significant trend, highlighting the increasing prominence of collective actions. ESG litigation, particularly greenwashing claims, is gaining traction in the Dutch market.

Belgium, despite some uncertainty linked to political changes, remains relatively stable. In Austria, the introduction of a new TMT Data Protection section reflects a growing area of legal focus. However, Austria’s market has been affected by the insolvency of Signa, signaling deeper economic concerns. Luxembourg’s real estate sector faced challenges, although fund financing and fund litigation experienced growth.

Switzerland reflects cautious optimism in its transactional market despite underlying concerns. The country also saw the introduction of a dedicated Sports table.

Competition Law Trends: Evolving Legal Challenges

Competition law remains a dynamic area, with significant growth in contentious competition-related work, particularly follow-on damages claims. The enforcement of the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) regime and foreign subsidies regulation is gaining prominence, with potential shifts expected depending on the outcome of the U.S. presidential election.

The EU’s Digital Markets Act enforcement is a key area to monitor, while ESG-related competition work remains limited, except for cases linked to greenwashing. The food and retail sectors are seeing an increase in competition investigations due to the ongoing cost-of-living crisis. Additionally, ‘no-poach’ agreements are becoming an increasingly relevant topic for competition law specialists.

Upcoming Webinars and Further Engagement

To assist firms in navigating the evolving research landscape, Chambers will host the following upcoming webinars:

• Europe Research Webinar – Hosted by Thomas Morton Green on April 8, 2025.
• Spain Research Webinar – Hosted by Camilla Russo on April 10, 2025.

The post Chambers Europe Guide 2025: Key Insights from the Launch Webinar appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

The post Webinar Invitation: Chambers RMT – Everything You Need to Know appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

1. Core Elements of a Strong Submission

• Work Highlights: Submissions should include detailed and significant matters from the past 12 months. Focus on innovation, complexity, and relevance to the market.
• Referee Feedback: Chambers places significant weight on feedback from clients and peers. Ensure referees can speak to your technical expertise, client service, and cross-border capabilities where applicable.

2. Submission Strategy: Tailor for Impact

• Prioritize Quality Over Quantity: For jurisdictions or heavily subscribed categories, focus on your firm’s most impressive highlights. However, aim to include the maximum number of matters (20) to demonstrate the depth of your practice.
• Referee Management: Submit all referees at the earliest deadline to streamline contact and avoid the “three-month rule,” which may limit repeated outreach.
• Adapt for Practice Areas: While the core submission principles are consistent across Chambers guides, adjust for jurisdictional nuances, such as the UK’s granular practice area categories versus broader global listings.

3. Optimizing Lawyer and Firm Presentation

• Bios: Highlight key achievements and a snapshot of recent, impactful work. Use concise, specific examples and avoid overly generic descriptions.
• About Us Section: Focus on what makes your team unique—industry expertise, generational depth, or specific standout capabilities. Avoid generic claims and ensure clarity.
• Feedback Section: Provide objective insights into market dynamics, competitor comparisons, and your firm’s positioning to strengthen your case.

4. Refining Matters for Submissions

• Grouping Matters: Combine related cases (e.g., similar transactions for the same client) but avoid overloading a single highlight with disparate elements.
• Cross-Practice Submissions: It’s acceptable to use the same highlight across different practice areas, but tailor the narrative to emphasize the relevant aspects for each area.

5. Interactions with Chambers Researchers

• Interviews: Partner interviews are an opportunity to provide clarity on niche practice areas or unique strengths but will not directly influence rankings. Prepare to use this time effectively.
• Market Feedback: Researchers also gather insights from peers in the market, which may influence their understanding of your firm’s standing.

6. Practical Tips for Success

• Stay On Time: While missing deadlines won’t automatically penalize you, late submissions may result in less thorough review.
• Include All Relevant Team Members: Acknowledge all contributors to a matter, even from other practice areas, but clarify their roles to avoid confusion.
• Use Data Effectively: Highlight deal values in transactional practices, but emphasize innovation and complexity in non-transactional areas.

Conclusion

Chambers submissions are both an art and a science, requiring a blend of strategy, precision, and storytelling. By focusing on your firm’s unique strengths, carefully managing referees, and adhering to submission best practices, you can enhance your rankings and visibility in this competitive landscape.

For additional support or tailored advice, feel free to reach out to Tier One Rankings for expert guidance. Stay tuned for more webinars and resources to help your firm excel!

The post Chambers Success Strategies: Key Insights from the Webinar Q&A appeared first on Tier One Rankings.