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.

The webinar, hosted by Chris Adams (US Editor) and Kingsley Egbuonu (Research Editor) last month, offered valuable insights and practical tips. Our team tuned in—so you don’t have to—and we’ve summarised the key points below.

Key research dates:

• September 1, 2025: Research Launch
• October 31, 2025: Firm submission deadline
• December 2025: Market feedback survey begins
• January 2026: End of research interviews
• February 2026: Start of results publication 
• July 2026: End of research

Tips and key insights about the research

• Research for 2026 began in September, and interviews will follow shortly.
• The practice areas assessed include: patent, trademark, copyright, design, IP transactions, domain names and IP tax advice. 
• There are no major changes to the research methodology. However, some new questions have been added to the questionnaire – highlighted in green in the online form.
• No timeline changes are expected. While publication dates remain subjects to changes, they are likely to follow the usual schedule. Updates can be found on the IP Stars live page.
• The research process – and being ranked – is free. IP Stars and Managing IP’s research is impartial: all firms are assessed using the same criteria. 
• Firms are encouraged to add as much information as possible, including feedback on other firms in their submissions.

Key principles guiding the research:

1. Transparency – The more information you provide in submission – about your own firm or other – the better.
2. Honesty – IP Stars expects accurate information, provided to the best of your knowledge.
3. Timeliness – Firms must meet submissions deadlines, although extension requests may be granted. Early engagement is prioritised.
4. Impact – Showcase how your work has made a difference to clients, your firm, or the industry.
5. Details – Supplying detailed information improves your chances, especially for award consideration.

Additional information on research

1. Overview of the Research Process

Research includes interviews with firms, surveys/interviews with referees, and analysis of historical data and firm websites. Rankings prepared by researchers are reviewed by editors.

2. Firm Interviews

Interviews with firms are used to gather feedback on current rankings—not to evaluate the firm’s own capabilities. All essential information should be included in the written submission.

3. Client and Referee Feedback:

Clients are typically asked how they found the firm, whom they would recommend, and whether they have worked with other firms. They are not asked to verify specific work types. While client interviews may occur, feedback is usually submitted in writing. It is important to ask your referees if they give consent to be contacted. IP Stars will reach out to them by email.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Researchers assess a firm’s track record, stability, consistency, and team/industry strengths. Bench strength—who is on your team and their expertise—is key. Market feedback from other firms is also highly important.

5. Work Highlights Guidance:

It is recommended to keep work highlights under 300 words, though firms won’t be penalised descriptions are longer or shorter.

6. Referee Spreadsheet

No changes were made to the excel spreadsheet. Firms should use the pre-formatted document without altering it. Each row should include the firm’s name under “Your firm’s name” for all referees; failing to do so may jeopardise the referee pool.

7. Submission of Final Documents

When it comes to submitting final documents, firms are encouraged to wait and submit their finals documents only, as IP Stars does not allow documents update by email. Firms should ideally avoid submitting temporary drafts on the portal. Same applies to referees: submit only your final list.  for the referees; only submit your final list. 

8. Submission Format

One document per jurisdiction is expected. 

Managing IP Awards

The awards recognise exceptional work and achievement of IP professionals, both in recent years and historically.

Three ceremonies take place – Americas, Asia Pacific and EMEA – attended by firms, in-house counsel and IP services providers and public officials.

As with the rankings, firms do not pay to win or be shortlisted. The awards cover multiple practice areas and categories. Submissions should highlight interesting case studies—whether recent or from past years. Previous years’ details add weight.

Strong first examples capture researchers’ attention, so firms are advised to present matters in order of importance. The matters submitted form the core of the assessment. There is no set number of matters to put forward, but the more case studies in the submission, the stronger the submission. 

Other aspects are important in the submission: can you show that you have retained clients? Have you launched a new tool? Have you opened a new office?  

Q&A: 

At the end of the session, attendees were invited to ask questions, and we’ve included the transcribed a couple below.

Q: Our firm operates globally. How do we choose where to submit?
A: Submit in jurisdictions where your lawyers are qualified to practise. For instance, if your firm is based in the US and all your lawyers are US-qualified, you should submit in the US—even if you handle international work.

Q: How do you treat negative feedback?
A: We take negative feedback seriously and address it thoughtfully. If a comment is particularly concerning, we contact the firm to give them the opportunity to respond.

Q: Does not being invited to a lawyer call impact the rankings?
A: No. Participation in lawyer calls does not affect your ranking.

Q: Is there an ideal number of referees to include for partners?
A: Simply complete the form; listing partner names for each client is unnecessary. We will ask referees directly who they have worked with. Include at least five referees who are likely to respond.

Q: Do you want to see updates on associate hires?
A: Yes, you may include more information than what appears in the form. Any relevant information—such as associate hires—is welcome.

Q: Can we add more than 15 matters in the submission?
A: Yes, you may include more than 15 matters in one practice area. The more examples you provide, the better—start with your strongest ones. Some firms include far more, and all are reviewed. If you have an update, you can email the researcher, explain why it wasn’t included, and provide the new information.

Q: How many people can join the call?
A: We prefer to speak with at least two representatives from each firm. If possible, include professionals from two practice areas. Senior associates are welcome, and anyone with relevant knowledge may join.

Q: Who do we contact if we have a question about the research?
A: Any enquiries should be sent to research@managingip.com.

We hope you have found this article helpful! Click here to watch the full webinar, and let us know if you have any questions!

The post IP STARS & Managing IP 2026 – Global Webinar: Key Takeaways appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

What is Market Pulse and what does it measure?

Market Pulse is a new data and analytics solution from Chambers that surfaces over 200,000 responses from legal buyers captured during our annual research into global markets. It shows real comments from legal buyers in a region on what external factors are going to impact their need for legal advice from law firms. This data is captured during our research process.

Which regions, practice areas, or sectors are included in the standard package?

Market Pulse is available for the following regions: Latin America, Canada, UK, Europe including France and Germany and the U.S.

How often is the data refreshed, and how current will the insights be?

Each month that we research one of these markets we will be providing the latest responses from legal buyers into the platform.

When was Market Pulse officially launched, and how widely is it being used?

Market Pulse was launched on 18th  September to the Latin America market and then rolled out to the Canadian market in late September and is due to be launched to the UK market on 16th  October.

How do law firms benefit in practice — what are the most common use cases for BD, client pitches, or strategic planning?

Key benefits that Business Development and Marketing teams have told us they will see value in using market pulse are:

• Preparing for client meetings – by providing partners with a briefing of the top concerns, including verbatim comments from clients and guidance on what to discuss during pitch meetings.
  
• Shaping campaigns and events – around topics that are top of mind for clients. With data sourced, plan out firms outreach via it’s thought leadership to cover trends clients are actively discussing.
  
• Identify high-potential segments – and target them with evidence-led outreach. Uncover new areas and the key pain points across the legal market to help your firm position itself as legal experts.

Are there any hints for any new useful products on the horizon?

This is just the start of Chambers creating a set of data and analytics solutions to support law firms.

For more information, reach out directly to Chambers or we can point you in the right direction.

The post Innovation Remains at the Heart of Chambers appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

Any feedback provided within this period will be taken into account for the rankings.

If your referees miss this feedback window, there is still an opportunity to provide feedback year-round using the link below. Through this form, they can select the relevant publication, jurisdiction, and practice area, and manually enter the firm they wish to comment on, along with their feedback on the team. However, please note that although Legal500 will receive this feedback, there is no guarantee that feedback received outside of the official research window will be considered or published.

Link to provide late feedback : https://www.legal500.com/referee-form/. To be prudent, any referee who has received a reminder is encouraged to use the original link provided by Legal500, rather than the general feedback form.

We will update this post if we receive any new information or developments, and don’t forget to check our LinkedIn to not miss our latest news!

As always, our dedicated team remains available if you have any questions!

The Tier One team

The post Legal500 EMEA 2026 Research: Update on Referee Outreach appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

Here are the key dates:

• Client referees deadline: November 14, 2025
• Editorial submission deadline: November 14, 2025
• Firms interviews conducted: December 2025 to February 2026
• Publication: June 2026

The Legal500 US 2026 guide has broadened its scope to more accurately reflect today’s market — recognising not only top-tier work, but also the strength of talent in the mid-market and specialist boutiques. The updated sections are highlighted in the image below!

For more information on practice area coverage, submission and referee templates, FAQs, click here.

As always, our Tier One team is at your disposal if you have any questions!

The post Legal500 US Guide 2026 – New and Amended Sections appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

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

Key Dates to Keep in Mind

Several important deadlines were emphasised during the webinar:

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

New Features in the Legal 500 Research Process

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

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

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

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

How to Build a Strong Submission

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

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

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

Maximising Referee Feedback

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

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

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

Categories for Individual Recognition

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

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

Addressing Common Questions

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

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

Subscription Packages: Standard and Premium (see picture below)

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

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

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

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

Final Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Building a Stronger Submission: Beyond the Work Highlights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

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

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

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

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

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

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.