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

What’s the Biggest Change This Year?

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

• IFLR1000 rankings, and
• IFLR Awards

This means:

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

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

Are the Practice Areas the Same as Last Year?

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

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

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

This change also means:

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

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

What If I Only Want to Submit for the Awards?

You still can.

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

If you’re submitting just for awards:

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

A few key rules to keep in mind:

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

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

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

Short answer: No.

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

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

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

Should I Nominate Lawyers Who Are Already Ranked?

Generally, no.

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

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

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

Is There a Limit on Lawyer Nominations?

Yes—and this is another area where precision matters.

You may nominate:

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

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

Can I Submit by Email?

Nope.

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

Are There Other Ways to Nominate Lawyers?

Yes!

The Lawyers Survey will open in March, allowing:

• Self-nominations
• Peer nominations

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

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

Final Thought

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

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

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

Deadlines:

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

Submissions and individual rankings:

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

Referee feedback:

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

And finally…

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

***

ANSWERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q What new visibility pathways will firms actually gain?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Chambers Asia-Pacific research

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

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

Asia-Pacific 2026 research stats

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

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

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

Asia-Pacific 2027

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

You can view the full schedule  here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. AI tools can be used

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewing the last submission cycle

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

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

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

Prioritising submissions

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

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

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

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

Reviewing key market trends and competitive analysis

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

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

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

Preparing to select matters

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

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

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

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

Capturing data

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

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

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

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

Partner involvement and approval

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

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

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

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

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

Submission deadlines and building a schedule

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

–

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

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

The current landscape

The directories space continues to be dominated by the biggest groups, Chambers and Partners and Legal 500. A few other directories such as IFLR1000 are also prominent, as are some specialist directories covering particular areas such as Benchmark Litigation for Disputes, IP Stars for IP and WTR for tax.

Outside of this group, there are many other organisations that assess law firms, and the last few years have seen a major increase in their numbers. It should be noted however that very few of these new organisations are considered to be reputable. Many of these are described as “pay-to-play”, wherein law firms can buy products in order to improve their chances of being ranked by that directory. These rankings are therefore not considered to have much integrity. The larger directories know that they trade entirely on their reputation of being fair and equitable in their rankings, hence they are more reliable.

Growth of private equity

That said, the larger directories are starting to change their approach to their own rankings, particularly in how best to commercialise their data, engage with law firms and create new products. This increased focus on the commercial arm is largely driven by the fact that a number of the big directories are now owned by private equity. Chambers and Partners was first bought out in 2018 by the PE firm Inflexion, and in 2023 was sold on to Abry Partners- at this sale, Chambers was valued at over £400 million. Meanwhile, earlier this year, IFLR’s parent group Legal Benchmarking was bought out by Triple Private Equity in a similar deal.

In light of the value that is now placed on these companies, the directories have been bolstering their commercial arms to support these products, and sales groups within the key rankings are increasingly getting in touch with firms of their own accord, independently of the research process.

The directories understand that they have a certain tightrope to walk between maintaining the integrity of their rankings and commercial pursuits. They are fully aware that the independence and impartiality of their process is the absolute core of their business; nonetheless, these are businesses, and they are therefore exploring what they can do to maximise their commercial potential whilst also maintaining that integrity.

Directory expansion

As part of the directories’ drive for growth, as well as their goal to produce more comprehensive content, the rankings themselves are continually expanding. The main drive for this expansion is in new ranking tables as their coverage of legal markets deepens and researchers begin to look at new practice areas that are fast developing. For example, the most recent Chambers Europe 2025 guide introduced 17 new ranking tables across 7 key jurisdictions.

The ranking tables themselves have also grown, with more law firms now being recognised on average per practice area than previously. There is therefore an increasing opportunity for firms to achieve a ranking where previously they may have been overlooked. The particular beneficiaries are smaller law firms, those that have been founded more recently, and boutiques who have a very particular area of expertise. One example of this development in Chambers USA guide is known as USA Spotlight, which looks to award recognition to these kinds of smaller law firms in certain states.

They have also sought to release new products making use of the existing data they collect. For example, in the last month Chambers have rolled out a new product called Market Pulse, a tool which makes use of all the commentary the company receives about recent market trends, and identifies what the market considers to be the most pressing issues.

Changes in products: Profiles

Alongside expanding the rankings themselves, the directories are also interested in finding sources of revenue connected to their rankings and are increasingly inviting firms to engage with products relating to the rankings process. For example, one of the major sources of revenue for directories has always been the profile, where a firm can add information about themselves on the directories website.

However recent changes to try and improve the efficacy of the profiles have included displaying law firms with a profile more prominently in the list of rankings, as well as allowing you to post editorial directly to social media.

Changes in products: Expansion of Insight/Research+

Another longstanding tool that is seeing great expansions are the directories’ reports about their ranking decisions. At Chambers these are called Insight reports, whereas Legal 500 refers to them as Research+.

When they were first introduced, these reports were fairly simple breakdowns of the information that the researchers received and the logic behind their ranking decisions. Over the last five years however, these reports have become much more detailed in the information they offer.

Newer features they provide include historical ranking data, numerical ratings for the firm’s performance in key metrics, and comparative data which shows how a team is performing versus closely competing law firms. Legal 500 for example now produces an array of these reports with slightly different areas, such as submission analysis documents and Client satisfaction KPI reports. They have therefore become better value and can be more useful for marketing teams than previously.

Changes in products: Research Management Tool

Another key product that Chambers released a few years ago is the Research Management Tool, which has had a dramatic effect on the research process and the ability of the firms to keep control of the process. Legal 500 have announced that they are introducing a similar tool as part of their Premium subscription.

These tools keep track of the referee process during active research, flagging if somebody
has not responded or there has been an issue with contacting them. Many ranking decisions can come down to whether there is sufficient information to promote, so using this tool can make the difference.

AI

The question of AI and how the directories will use them is also an ongoing issue. So far, the directories have taken a cautious approach to adopting these new technologies internally. As it stands, research remains very labour intensive, backed by large teams (Legal 500 has approximately 50 researchers, whilst Chambers has over 200.)

This is something that may change in future, and no doubt they will be considering how best to use new technology to improve their process. We are keeping an eye out for any potential changes and will send out updates if so.

Continuity in ranking methodology

As much as these changes have significantly altered the approach of the directories and their relationships with law firms, there is a major continuity that should be noted, and that is their core methodology of the rankings. Each directory has a slightly different approach and they have been tried and tested. For example, Chambers places particular emphasis on the feedback they receive from sources, whilst Legal500 primarily focuses on the work evidence provided.

These methodologies have remained steady almost since they were founded over 30 years ago, and whilst the approach around this method may change, it is unlikely that the core process will see any significant transformation.

–

If you liked this article, you might be interested reading Laurence’s latest article on How to prepare for the next directories cycle available here.

The post Trends in directories: What is changing and what to look out for appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

Understanding Your Insight Report

Analysis Tips

Insight reports have historically been constrained by strict word limits, meaning that analyses have not always been able to fully and clearly discuss all aspects and nuances around a firm’s performance and ranking decision.

This can lead to an analysis sounding positive while the firm’s or individual’s ranking remains the same. To help explain this, here are a few reasons why a promotion might not have occurred despite an apparently strong performance.

• Lacking similar performances. Chambers aims to avoid kneejerk reactions to performances, so Research might be waiting for evidence that this year’s showing is part of a trend rather than a one-off. Consistently demonstrating strong performances can therefore be beneficial.

• Promoted last year. A strong performance after a promotion is encouraging, as it helps justify the decision to move up. However, Chambers typically looks for evidence that the promoted party can succeed at this level before it is considered for a further promotion. As above, one data point is usually not enough.

• Lacking something compared with higher ranked competitors. The thing lacking might not be clearly stated but only mentioned in passing, for example: “although client feedback is limited“, it is highly effusive. Keeping an eye out for structures like this can alert you to potential shortcomings which could be differentiating you or your lawyer from those in the tiers above.
  
  Note that CMI purchasers can also cross-reference such phrases with the comparative analyses, to further see how they compare with higher ranked competitors.

It is worth noting that Chambers has recently removed the word limits from Insight reports. It remains to be seen how this affects the analyses, but it could potentially mean that reports are clearer and better able to explain the research.

Submission & Rankings Page Tips

What is it? The page that explains your team’s ranking, gives tips for improvement, and provides information about scores, rankings, and referee response rates.

Tip for reading 1: The analysis will generally only touch upon the most important or interesting aspects of your performance. Therefore, if an aspect is not mentioned, this might actually indicate that you’re already on the right track there.

Tip for reading 2: An Insight report will always provide a tip for improving your submission, but you might not always get a referee tip if your referee response rate was above average. In these cases, continuing to put forward a full complement of referees who would be willing to discuss your team and individuals could be beneficial, as it might show consistent satisfaction with the group’s performance.

Individuals Page Tips

What is it? A page containing feedback, analysis, and data about all of your ranked and Potential lawyers and those who have lost their ranking or Potential status this year.

Tip for reading: This is perhaps obvious, but worth reiterating nonetheless: things that might be detrimental to one lawyer might not necessarily be detrimental to another – a lack of work, for instance. There are various reasons for this, such as:

• Trends: Consistently minimal evidence of activity or feedback will likely be more of a concern than a blip in an otherwise strong track record.
  
• Ranking: Although Chambers generally looks for convincing evidence of market involvement for ranked lawyers, there can be more leeway for Senior Statespeople and Associates to Watch (given where they are in their careers) and Eminent Practitioners (given their management responsibilities). Chambers understands that such individuals are usually less heavily involved in frontline practice and might therefore have less evidence of lead roles on work and consequently recent feedback.

Recognising that Chambers prioritises long-term evidence over potential one-off anomalies can help you plan your submission strategy, while being clear on the band definitions can help explain certain ranking decisions.

Competitors page tips

What is it? The page that analyses the performance of up to three other firms, usually in higher tiers.

Tip for reading 1: The Insight team tends to pick competitors based on their ranking relative to your firm’s. This might result in you being compared with groups that you might not consider natural competitors; however, these choices are designed to aid you on your journey up the table by highlighting comparisons with firms in the bands immediately above you.

Firms typically move up one band at a time, making these insights potentially more valuable than comparisons between, say, an unranked group and the market’s most famous teams which all happen to be at the top of the table.

Tip for reading 2: The comparatives should correlate with what was raised on the Submission & Rankings page, giving you concrete examples of good practice that might shed light on how to address the issues raised in Submission & Rankings.

The comparatives might also touch upon issues not previously mentioned, thereby providing extra insight into Chambers’ thought processes around what constitutes standout activity or feedback for that band in that area. This in turn could influence your future submissions and lead to greater similarities with higher placed competitors.

Client Feedback and Market Feedback pages tips

What is it? These pages contain feedback on the department, grouped into themes.

Tip for reading 1: The number of client and third-party comments here might not necessarily align with the data on the Submission & Rankings page. Feedback might be received from non-referee sources (e.g. clients put forward by other firms), or perhaps some of your referees were contacted but didn’t provide usable feedback on this practice area.

Tip for reading 2: Rankings should not be decided on the contents of peer feedback alone, but your standing in the market might be taken into consideration. This could well happen in a competitive section in which all firms are well regarded by clients but not all have comparable peer recognition. The latter might therefore act as another possible differentiating factor between firms.

Modest peer recognition could be symptomatic of poor brand visibility, so approaching your market feedback objectively and understanding the themes within might help spark discussions around how to increase your team’s exposure in the field. Nishlis Legal Marketing works extensively with firms on professional development to help them grow their brands and become recognised as leading experts in their fields.

Other Individuals Page Tips

What is it? The page containing the unranked individuals who garnered feedback in this practice area this year and their comments.

Tip for reading 1: Remember that any individual who is designated internally as a Potential for a ranking or who has lost this designation or a ranking this year will not appear on this page. They will be in the Individuals screen, as they will have an analysis of their performance.

Tip for reading 2: Unfortunately, Chambers does not provide analysis about all unranked lawyers – only those who lost their rankings or are considered internally as Potentials for a listing.

Final Tips and Tricks

• Chambers no longer emails PDF Insight reports; instead, they have to be accessed through the Digital Insight web portal.
• Reports can be downloaded as PDFs and other formats from Digital Insight.
• Digital Insight lets you download your entire report or just certain chapters, enabling you to send only the relevant parts to the relevant people without having to manually divide a PDF.
• Chambers assigns access to Digital Insight to a nominated contact within your firm, so knowing who that is and promptly informing Chambers if you need to change this contact can be useful for maintaining access to your report or
  distributing it internally.

As always, we remain available if you have any questions!

The post Maximising the Value of Your Insight Report appeared first on Tier One Rankings.