Following on from the launch of its UK guide last month, Chambers & Partners marked the start of November with Chambers 360, a seminar which, through a wealth of helpful pointers and anecdotes, was geared to help firm improve their submissions.

UK Research Director Alex Marsh was joined by other senior members of the team and, although the various presentations covered different sub-topics, the unifying theme was to emphasise the extremely competitive nature of the rankings.

Chambers receives overwhelming engagement, a fact laid bare by the fact that only 1/3^rd of participants who submit for its most popular tables will receive a ranking, and therefore firms who wish to stand out from the crowd need to ensure that their submissions excel on all fronts.

The directory is famed for its extensive market research, which includes tends of thousands of interviews for the UK guide alone, though the point was emphasised that positive peer/client feedback naturally needs to be complemented by an equally strong submission.

In fact, it was stated that a practice which, in reality may be thriving, may be denied a promotion or even demoted/unranked should the submission fail to convey its actual strength.

The Work Highlights

Chambers emphasised that the majority of a firm’s resources should be directed towards correctly completing the work highlights section. Above all else, this is the one section that firms need to perfect.

Interestingly, despite the emphasised desire for complex and challenging work, Chambers advises that matter write ups need to be streamlined, as opposed to overly detailed.

Mini novels are not recommended, and firms need to bear their audience in mind i.e., the writing should be accessible to the research analyst, who is not a qualified lawyer. The best approach is to broadly describe what happened, as opposed to getting bogged down in the technical legalease.

Chambers advised to tackle each work matter by:

1. An opening sentence or two describing what happened
2. A couple of further sentences identifying why the matter was important
3. A final note on any additional context e.g., was it a new client, has it closed or is it still ongoing?

More broadly, general advice included:

1. Firms check the relevant practice area definitions before preparing their submissions. They need to ensure that any work included is relevant to the given table e.g., a shareholder dispute should be in a Commercial Litigation submission as opposed to Corporate/M&A
2. Firms need to showcase a broad spectrum of matters across a wealth of different industries. For example, a real estate submission focusing on investments, developments, and leasing across a range of property types will be preferable to only providing leasing matters at retail sites
3. Firms need to ensure that they include the full 20 permitted matters, where possible, as this number strikes a balance between allowing firms to focus on their very best work, yet also permitting Chambers to gauge how varied the workload is.
4. Most importantly, firms need to provide deal values, especially for transaction-focused tables. This was repeatedly emphasised, and is evidently one of Chambers’ key criteria. Firms were reminded that deal values can be marked as confidential and if an exact figure cannot be provided, a value range is acceptable.

Individual Rankings

Chambers emphasised that firms should not cast the net too wide i.e., provide any more than 5 or 6 lawyers for an individual ranking. The reason being is that, in addition to exceptional market feedback, lawyers hoping for a ranking will need to showcase 3 or 4 standout matters within the submission.

Given that firms are only permitted to include 20 work highlights, advocating too many lawyers will naturally result in fewer matters per lawyer. Moreover, Chambers acknowledged that they are unlikely to add more than a few lawyers per firm, signifying that the most realistic candidates should be advocated.

A curated approach is best, firms should aim to focus on specific candidates each year and turn their attention elsewhere once these names have been added.

One very interesting anecdote was that already ranked names can retain their rankings with just one or two work highlights, so long as it is explicitly stated in the submission that they are not as prominent this year due to a focus on other individuals. Chambers stated that this will allay any concerns that this lawyer may be winding down their practice.

Of course, a balance needs to be struck here. Firms are recommended to showcase their absolute standout work, regardless of who is leading it, as failing to do so could detriment the overall practice ranking, though this needs to be balanced by ensuring that individual candidates have the recommended amount of exhibited work.

Given that firms have 20 matters to work with, sufficient consideration can be given to both, though this will no doubt involve a great deal of tactical consideration.

Referee Feedback

Finally, Chambers provided some extremely helpful pointers on how firms can further optimise their referee feedback:

1. Chambers provides a referee management tool, as part of its profile package, while permitting firms to track who has been successfully contacted
2. Firms should ask their referees to add @chambers.com to their safe senders list
3. Firms are welcome to reach out to Chambers directly should they have any questions on the reach out process, or concerns about who has/has not been contacted.
4. Availability and Responsiveness: Referees should be available, willing, and responsive, with sufficient English proficiency to speak for 5-10 minutes on the phone.
5. Familiarity with the Team: Referees should know the team well enough to describe its strengths and some of the lawyers involved in the matter. In-house counsel can be more effective than CEOs as they are more likely to respond and possess legal knowledge.

Most helpfully, in a pointer which is likely to go contrary to how most firms currently operate, it was suggested that, for the very largest of clients, firms should put forward more junior names i.e., someone who will likely have the time to talk to Chambers in great depth, as opposed to CEOs who may be pressed for time.

Likewise, a firm may be able to include a recognisable GC or revered barrister as a referee though this inclusion will hold zero weight if this individual never finds the time to converse with Chambers.

Helpful, insightful and revealing feedback from a more junior name was stated to hold far more weight than rushed or non-existent commentary from a senior figure.

How We Can Help

At Tier One Rankings, our team boasts over two decades of collective experience in Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners, with former researchers and editors among our ranks. The majority of our clients have attained Tier 1 rankings, and nearly half have received either firm or individual ranking advancements in the past year.

We specialize in the four key areas addressed at Chambers 360:
Work Quality: We assist in effectively presenting complex matters.
Scope of Work: Ensuring a diverse range of matter types and industries.
Individuals: Striking the right balance in promoting your practice.
Referees: We help you select optimal referees, keeping Chambers’ limits in mind.

Our commitment is to provide practical support to enhance your submission and improve your rankings.