With our extensive experience working with the system since its launch two years ago, and recognizing the huge weight referees carry in the rankings, we’ve designed this session to provide clarity, insights, and practical solutions to help you maximize your success. We will be joined by both current and former Chambers employees, who together can offer a full insight into how best to use the RMT.

What the Webinar Will Cover:

• Technical Overview: A detailed look at the tool’s features and recent updates.
• Practical Tips: Suggestions to optimize contact rates and avoid common pitfalls, including the notorious “3-month rule.”
• Insights from the Experts:
  • Galit Imbo, Managing Director of Submissions at Tier One Ranking, will share solutions and best practices from her experience.
  • Laurence Mussett, former Research Manager at Chambers, will provide a unique researcher’s perspective to the process. 
  • Ernest Lesniewski, Product Delivery and Operations Manager at Chambers, will offer a view from the managers of the RMT and provide the specifics of how it works.
• Q&A Session: Get your specific questions answered.

Webinar Details:

• Date & Time: Monday, March 9th, 3 PM UK time (10 AM ET / 4 PM CET)
• Duration: 1 hour
• Location: Online (Zoom link provided upon registration)

Submit Your Questions in Advance

To ensure we address the issues most important to you, please send your questions to galit@nishlis.com ahead of the webinar.

Don’t miss this opportunity to deepen your understanding of the RMT and learn how to make it work for you.

Register Here

A confirmation email with the link to the webinar will be sent to those who register.

We look forward to seeing you there!

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

We’re pleased to share that Alek Tomasevic, Head of USA Research Development at Chambers, will join as a special guest panelist for the live Q&A.

The program will include a focused presentation by Chris Lahr, former Chambers editor and Senior Consultant at Tier One Rankings, sharing insider perspective on what distinguishes top-ranked firms and lawyers — followed by a live Q&A discussion with Alek.

Agenda
8:30–9:00am – Light breakfast
9:00–10:00am – Short presentation followed by Q&A
10:00–10:30am – Networking

Key topics include:

• How directories evaluate submissions and determine rankings
• What strong submissions look like in practice (and common pitfalls to avoid)
• How to support individual rankings and referee engagement
• How to present matters and highlights clearly, credibly, and persuasively

Registration is required, seating is limited.

Tuesday, March 3 | 9:00–11:00am

Herrick, Feinstein LLP (Herrick) offices | 2 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Registration: Click here.
For more details, contact Chris@nishlis.com

The post Legal Directories: Inside the Rankings Process (NYC Briefing)  appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

The webinar consisted of a panel that discussed some of Chambers’ major findings from its 2025-6 research and what are of the major trends and challenges that law firms face on an international scale. The panel was hosted by journalist Catherine Baksi, and was made up of:

• Vian Chowdhury, Head of Global International Capabilities at Chambers
• Ollie Dimsdale, Head of Africa, Middle East, Caribbean & Offshore at Chambers
• James Hanratty, General Counsel for Trainline
• Renato Leitie Monteiro, Vice President of Privacy, Data Protection, AI & IP at e&

Research findings: Global trends

• Global M&A saw strong growth in 2025, with total deal value hitting around $4.8 trillion USD. This represents an increase of around 40% compared to last year. There was a particular increase in high-end deals, ie those valued at above $5 billion USD. North America made up over 50% of these transactions, whilst the Asia-Pacific region hit a record of around $1 billion USD.
• Disputes were particularly driven by issues relating to energy, climate change and sanctions. Class actions particularly surged, with settlements reaching $79 billion in the USA alone. International arbitration has also seen major developments, such as recent changes to the UK’s Arbitration Act and a new arbitration law in China.
• In-house counsel are increasingly using AI tools to improve their operations. The primary concerns this year have evolved beyond the design and implementation of these tools, and are now more focussed on ensuring they provide correct evaluations, eliminating hallucinations and verifying output.

Research findings: The Middle East

• The UAE and Saudi Arabia continue to attract international law firms, with several recently opening up in Riyadh, Dubai and Abu Dhabi (including Reed Smith, Gowling, Mischon de Reya and Stephenson Harwood.)
• Chambers’ ranking for Saudi in particular has expanded rapidly, with a new Projects & Energy table introduced and Dispute Resolution now split into Arbitration and Litigation. 
• Chambers coverage of the UAE has also expanded significantly, most notably in its Financial Services Regulation and TMT tables.

Research findings: Africa

• Regulatory change has been a major theme in Africa research this year. Notable examples include major changes to tax legislation in Nigeria and amendments to South Africa’s Black Economic Empowerment policy.
• Chambers’ African coverage has expanded in a few areas. In particular, Uganda and Botswana rankings have changed from a single General Business Law table to separate Corporate/Commercial and Dispute Resolution tables.

Regulatory complexity

The panel discussed in particular the development of more complex regulatory regimes and the geopolitical pressures they are experiencing. For example, the EU’s Digital Markets Act has aimed to create a free and fair digital market across Europe, but whilst it has in some cases moved to enforce against big tech to achieve this, in other cases it has been hesitant to do so, most likely due to certain geopolitical pressures. This risks creating uncertainty for businesses looking to expand and invest in Europe.

AI development

With many regions of the world involved in developing more powerful models of AI, the Middle East is seeking to position itself as a middle ground where both AI development and more sophisticated regulation are being taken up. Virtually all major organisations in technology are heavily investing in AI development, but there is increasing interest in forming a responsible AI framework. The panellists discussed how to make the best use of AI by integrating it into the culture of an organisation. Questions around the usage of AI now falls into three broad categories:

• How to embed AI into a company’s products?
• How to respond to changes in the digital ecosystem caused by AI? For example the increase in initial searches through tools such as ChatGPT instead of traditional search engines.
• How to improve productivity and effectiveness through AI.

How law firms are using AI

The panellists noted that there has not yet been a revolutionary change in the way legal services are being provided due to AI, either in terms of the products provided or the fees being charged. They encouraged firms to take control of the conversation and discuss with clients how AI could be actively implemented to improve their services. So far, firms are mostly interested in developing AI tools for internal use, and they should remain conscious of ensuring that none of this technology is implemented without human oversight. Given the position of expertise that law firms now have with these tools, they can also actively educate clients on their usage and how best to use them. The panellists also noted a potential future challenge with training and developing younger lawyers if simpler, entry-level tasks are to be completely automated.

ESG

Many companies are very vocal about their dedication to ESG matters and a lower carbon economy, but the panel noted that lawyers are in a crucial position to translate this into actionable change. Businesses are increasingly building ESG goals into their KPIs, particularly in the Middle East where climate impact is anticipated to be high. On this matter, law firms can greatly assist their clients by giving an up-to-date picture on the changing regulations and opinion of governments. Providing that strategic market understanding is crucial for businesses to align their approach and set climate targets. The ability for law firms to provide this service is becoming a greater factor in the procurement process for many major businesses. As General Counsels are typically at the forefront of driving for ESG, they expect external counsel to be a partner on this front. It was noted that UK firms are particularly strong in terms of ESG, especially in terms of net-zero commitments.

What GCs expect from external counsel

The panel ended with a discussion of how law firms can best help their in-house counsel and provide the strongest service. With businesses expecting firms to be familiar with technology and helping to educate them on how to use it, firms  need to think of themselves as tech experts. Businesses are also looking for proactive advice on how to power themselves further, not just to reactively deal with issues as they appear. Finally, as legal teams are likely to see more budget constraints over 2026, there will likely be increasing interest in alternative fee arrangements. This will be particularly true in markets such as the Middle East which are becoming more crowded and therefore more competitive. In these markets, law firms offering an associate on secondment is becoming a typical practice to make the gap between law firm and client more seamless.

The post Chambers Global 2026 – Guide Launch Webinar appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

If you couldn’t make it or simply want a reminder about what was said, here are the key takeaways.

Key dates

The Asia-Pacific submission deadline is Friday 6 March 2026.

However, IFLR is willing to consider extensions on a case-by-case basis, if a firm feels that it won’t be able to submit on time. Firms should contact IFLR as soon as possible if this is the case.

IFLR is planning to hold an APAC Awards event in November for local firms and foreign firms with offices in the region.

Other deadlines mentioned were:

• 26 January: Western Europe
• 16 February: Central and Eastern Europe
• 13 March: The Americas
• July: The Middle East (precise date to be determined)
• September: Africa (precise date to be determined)

The IFLR website contains the latest submission deadlines and research timetables and should be updated once the July and September dates are finalised: https://www.iflr1000.com/Stub/OurResearch

What’s new?

There are three key changes affecting all IFLR research, not only Asia-Pacific. These are:

Submission forms

These now cover both the IFLR1000 rankings and the IFLR Awards, meaning firms now need provide only one submission per practice area (instead of having to submit to the rankings and then to the awards).

Eligible period

IFLR now considers work from the past 14 months instead of the past 12 months. For Asia-Pacific, this means work from January 2025 onwards is eligible.

Practice areas

Certain practice areas have been updated or revised – such as Banking, which is now Banking & Finance – to more accurately reflect practice area distinctions.

Also, new tables have been added in Europe, such as Regional Network (to allow firms to showcase work in foreign jurisdictions where they might not have an office) and Africa Practice (for firms based in Europe but specialising in Africa transactions).

The latest definitions for 2026 can be found here: https://go.iflr1000.com/IFLR1000-Practice-Area-Definitions-2026

Process

The research methodology remains unchanged, with rankings based on work, client feedback, and market response.

Eligibility
Firms must have a physical office and licence in the jurisdiction, and practise in one or more of IFLR’s core areas (financial, corporate, or project development). Lawyers seeking individual rankings must also be licensed and based locally. The exception is Foreign Firm tables, where firms may be based outside the jurisdiction.

Work
Work remains the most important factor. Firms may submit up to 10 matters per practice area, focusing on their strongest and most significant deals. Repeating matters from previous years is discouraged unless there are material updates. Up to three matters can be marked for awards consideration, provided they are publishable, cross-border, and reached financial close in 2025.

Referees and feedback
Up to 15 client referees may be submitted per practice area, all of whom should have worked with the firm in the past 18 months. Referees may complete a survey or request a phone interview. Peer feedback is gathered through lawyer interviews and the annual Lawyer Feedback Survey.

Individual ratings
Firms may nominate up to five lawyers for new or changed individual rankings. Nominated lawyers should be supported by at least three work highlights. Existing rankings will still be reviewed even if no nomination is made.

Submitting
All submissions must be made via IFLR’s online portal. Email submissions are not accepted, and portal accounts must be registered using a law firm email address.

The post IFLR1000 2026 Webinar Watch appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

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

B) Matter selection (what makes the cut)

For each shortlisted matter, confirm:

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

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

Use the 5 Ws in ~5–8 lines:

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

Final pass

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

D) Referee plan (the controllable lever)

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

E) Team + individuals (visibility with proof)

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

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

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

G) Final QA (submit-ready checks)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some important dates reminders first

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

What’s new?

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

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

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

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

Submission

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

Referees

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

Awards

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

Additional Helpful Information

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

Here are some helpful links:

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

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

Here’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.