The most notable change on the referee side is that USA – Nationwide Litigation: General Commercial has now been added to the list of Nationwide sections for which Chambers will not contact referees. Chambers states that, for these sections, it will instead rely on feedback gathered through relevant state-based research. See the Chambers link below for the full list of these ‘no referee’ sections: https://chambers.com/topics/chambers-usa-nationwide-sections-no-referees

On the submissions side, Chambers has introduced 32 new submission areas for Chambers USA 2027. These consist of 27 state-level categories across 20 states and 5 new Nationwide categories. Notably, three of these new sections begin research in July, making them the earliest Chambers USA deadlines this cycle and requiring immediate attention from firms with relevant practices.

Full table: new Chambers USA 2027 practice areas

This table reflects the full list published by Chambers on 30 April 2026: https://chambers.com/topics/chambers-usa-new-practice-areas-submissions

Practical implications

For firms active in any of the new categories, this is a good time to assess whether work previously submitted under broader headings may now be better presented in a more targeted section. That is especially true in areas such as product liability, insurance, litigation specialisms, national security, and digital infrastructure, where Chambers appears to be drawing finer distinctions in its coverage.

For firms with strong Nationwide practices, the referee update reinforces the importance of a joined-up national/state submission strategy. Where Chambers is not taking separate referees for a Nationwide table, firms should ensure their state-level submissions are supported by the right clients and the right matters to tell a compelling broader story.

The most immediate deadlines are the three 16 July 2026 sections: California Media & Entertainment: Music, New Jersey Technology, and Texas Water Law. Firms with credible experience in those areas should move quickly if they want to participate in the first wave of research.

The post Chambers USA 2027: New Submission Areas, Nationwide Referee Changes & Key Deadlines appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

On 28th April, we conducted a webinar regarding the internal ranking process at Chambers & Partners. The webinar was hosted by Blessing Adeagbo and Lena Martin, moderated by Laurence Mussett, and featured guest speaker Ana Licurci, Research Manager at Chambers & Partners.

We were delighted to see such a high level of attendance. Thank you again to everyone who joined us! As always, to ensure no one misses out, we’ve put together the key takeaways from the session.

Who This Article Is For

• Law firm marketing and business development teams
• Partners preparing Chambers submissions
• Firms aiming to improve or secure Chambers rankings

Quick Overview

The webinar began with an overview of Chambers’ submission process, including important 2026 deadlines, key ranking components, and what firms need to know to succeed. This was followed by a focused session on how to write compelling work highlights and what strong client feedback looks like, along with additional practical tips. 

We concluded with a live Q&A session and we were very excited to receive an overwhelming number of questions. For those that we were not able to answer in the session, we have given our responses to the remaining queries at the end of this article.

Upcoming 2026 dates

Understanding the Chambers & Partners Research Process

Chambers & Partners research is structured in 5 key phases, which the researcher will have to go through each time they are researching a practice area. 

1. Preparation – Researchers meet with ranking editors to discuss market trends, recent developments, and objectives for the upcoming research (table refinement, new subtables, etc.).
2. Interviews – Researchers speak with lawyers and clients to collect feedback via calls or surveys.
3. Ranking – All the information gathered is analysed by the researcher, including submission as well as feedback from peers and clients.
4. Editorial – The researcher will select quotes from clients, and matter examples and will check that the description of the firm/lawyer is still accurate. 
5. Publication – After internal review, guides are published.

Tips: 

• Submissions are assessed annually, so consistency in both performance and participation is essential. 
• Submit referees on time to ensure they are contacted when the research starts. Be sure to send them your own reminders as this vastly improves the chance that they will respond.
• Make sure the lawyers are available to the researcher for calls

Key Criteria Behind Chambers Rankings

Chambers rankings are based on four key factors: 

1. Work highlights: The researcher will assess the sophistication of the matters submitting using the submission.
   → What does sophistication actually entail? This term refers to the complexity, scale, or strategic importance of your work. Factors include:

• The prominence of the client or transaction in the market
• Legal or jurisdictional complexities involved
• Novel issues handled, or innovative approaches
• The firm’s specific role and impact on the outcome

Note: Matters don’t have simply to be the highest-value deals; complex regulatory or cross-border work can be equally impressive, as are those that are very unusual or set precedent. Those factors really depend on the practice area. 

2. Referee feedback: What your referees say about you in surveys or interviews. Strong client feedback can have a significant impact on rankings, particularly when a researcher is undecided about a potential promotion.
3. Bench strength (for firms) and individual involvement (for lawyers): The researcher assesses the depth and quality of the team, or how actively a lawyer contributes to matters. 
4. Finally, market feedback: What peers say about a lawyer or a firm. It has the least weight but can still influence decisions if consistently positive or negative.

Tips: 

• Write matters clearly, concisely, and easy to understand (max. 1 page)
• Focus on quality: the submission allows for 20 matters, so be sure to focus on your strongest work.
• Showcase new work where possible and add clear updates if using matters that have appeared recently.
• Complete as many fields as possible where feasible for confidential matters and only use N/A when strictly necessary
• Include lawyers from other departments where relevant to help show your bench strength, especially for co-led or cross-practice matters.

How to Write Strong Work Highlights for Chambers Submissions

A well-structured matter description helps researchers quickly understand the importance of your work.

We recommend the following structure:

1. The client is identified clearly and concisely. Don’t assume the researcher knows every market player— adding brief context helps them understand both the matter and its significance.
2. The transaction is clearly explained and outlines the firm’s role and key responsibilities (current and ongoing). 
3. The firm highlights why the deal is complex, impactful, or significant—making clear why it deserves inclusion. This is crucial, as excessive or overly technical detail can obscure what the matter’s impact was.
4. A closing sentence highlighting why the matter shows the firm’s strengths. This can help underscore the strength of the deal. 

Tips: 

• Keep work highlights concise and impactful, ideally within one page per matter. 
• It’s also fine to include confidential matters: Chambers handles all data with care, and confidentiality does not make a matter any less strong or valuable.

What about matter values? 

Matter value is not always decisive, but it can provide useful context. Below are some tips:

• Use the correct value: Showcase the matter/transaction value, not the enterprise value.
• Value is a good indicator, but it isn’t everything: Don’t exclude matters just because the value is lower—complexity, jurisdictional challenges, or client importance can make them equally significant.
• Highlight broader complexity: Emphasise what makes the matter notable beyond value (e.g. legal difficulty, strategic importance, timing).
• Include values where possible: It’s better to include a matter than omit it, as each adds to the overall picture.
• Handle confidentiality smartly: If exact figures are sensitive, provide a value range instead.
• Consider practice area differences: In areas like disputes, value may matter less, but including it where possible still helps give context.

How to Secure Strong Referee Feedback for Chambers

Referee feedback is one of the most influential ranking factors, often carrying even more weight than work highlights.

Tips:

• Choose referees who are responsive and available, not just the most senior.
• Prepare them by explaining Chambers’ role and expectations, so they don’t mistake outreach for spam.
• Encourage written responses if calls aren’t possible. Feedback in any form counts.
• Spread referees strategically, so that newer partners receive exposure and are well positioned for consideration too. 
• Never “coach” referees, but ensure they understand what Chambers is looking for. The main themes to their feedback should be the firm’s quality of advice, commercial awareness, and sophistication of service. 

Consistent, positive feedback over multiple cycles signals reliability and will therefore lead to new or improved rankings.

Demonstrating Bench Strength in Chambers Submissions

Chambers looks beyond individual partners.

To demonstrate strength:

• Include a range of lawyers across seniority levels
• Highlight collaboration across teams and jurisdictions
• Show continuity and depth within your practice

Consistency in Chambers Submissions Matters

Skipping a year or submitting partial information can negatively affect rankings. Chambers really values steady participation and evidence of ongoing excellence — not sporadic peaks.
If a ranked lawyer isn’t included in a submission, Chambers will monitor their performance the following year before making any ranking changes.

Final Thoughts

To stand out in your submissions to Chambers going forward:

• Submit every year
• Keep matters current (12-15 months max.), clear and easy to understand
• Make sure you explain why the matter is important/complex/challenging etc. 
• Prioritise available and willing referees above all others.

Remaining Q&A questions: 

1. I have observed through the last years that Chambers send the questionnaires to selected referees – not all. Does it go in stages or just a part of all referees provided by a law firm?

Usually, referees are contacted around the same time, whether for calls or surveys. However, in larger sections, outreach may be staggered.

The split between survey and call invitations can vary. Typically, call invites are sent to referees with a higher number of referrals, while surveys go to the rest. Some sections may follow a 50/50 split, but this is flexible. 

It is at the researcher’s discretion who they invite to calls, but ultimately Chambers will try to speak to as many referees via phone interview as possible.

2. What if a matter is very sensitive and barely any information can be shared?

If you already have enough strong matters, it may not be necessary to include it. However, if the client is notable, you can still list them in the confidential client section (Section E0) to demonstrate that you act for them.

You’re always welcome to include clients in the confidential section—Chambers treats this information seriously, and confidentiality does not weaken the strength of your submission.

Consider whether you have enough disclosable information to give the researcher a fair impression of what the matter was and why it was important. If you do not have enough information, you may wish to consider including other matters.

3. I would like to understand how we should reflect a situation where we handle multiple engagements for a single client — for example, an ongoing general advisory mandate alongside a new, distinct matter. Should these be listed as separate entries within the same client reference, or is there a preferred format for combining them into one submission?

We usually recommend listing all the deals you’ve handled for a single client under one matter description, but it’s important to clearly distinguish between different engagements—for example, ongoing advisory work versus a specific litigation matter. This approach also helps free up space to highlight work for other clients.

4. I had the benefit of going through a survey with a lawyer and I notice that the questions aren’t the same as these. Are these specifically the questions that would be asked in an interview?

The sample questions shown during the webinar reflect the general theme of the questions that referees would typically be asked on calls and in surveys/questionnaires. They will likely be questions that researchers will ask in phone interviews. The questions may not be in the same exact words as in the surveys, but the general ideas that Chambers & Partners want to find out about are the same.

5. Is it better to have referees who can speak specifically to matters that we have submitted? Sometimes we need to drop matters because others are more impressive but the referee is still one that we would like to put forward. Is it stronger to have the referees that can talk to the specific matters that we do select for consistency?

Referees do not necessarily need to align with specific matters. This is encouraged where possible, as researchers can then corroborate a matter in the submission with feedback from someone else who worked on it. However, if the firm has a solid referee who is likely to respond and provide helpful feedback, the referee should not be dropped simply because their matter is not featured on the submission.

6. It was mentioned that the “referring lawyer” column in the referee spreadsheet is helpful, but that’s only relevant for referees who have calls with Chambers right? Most referees receive a survey and in that case that column is irrelevant.

Yes, referees who receive surveys are required to select lawyers from a dropdown menu. However, the “referring lawyer” field should always be completed if possible because they are helpful to researchers when they conduct phone interviews

7. Is it worth describing in the work highlight who worked on the case, given that the team composition is already included in the dedicated row? Isn’t it a waste of characters?

While completing the dedicated field in the work highlight form is crucial, also indicating which lawyers or teams worked on specific aspects of a matter can help clarify roles and responsibilities—especially when multiple partners are involved across different departments, or when you are aiming to have a particular lawyer recognised.

In short, this is optional, but worthwhile if you have the space and a clear reason to mention specific lawyers during the matter description.

8. Given the form encourages us not to just submit lawyer bios that are already available on the website, what are things that can be added to lawyer bios would catch the eyes of Chambers?

We recommend including a hyperlink to the website bio within the individual’s name.

A strong bio should ideally be structured within 150–200 words and include: a brief overview of expertise and education, key track record highlights, ongoing or recent major work, notable publications (if relevant), and a clear indication of where you believe the individual should be ranked.

9. Is it possible to include some confidential details in a disclosable work highlight? If yes, how? Putting sensitive information in red ? Or when in doubt just put it in the non-publishable work? (Some elements of our transactions are public while some aspects we worked on are confidential).

Where a matter combines publishable and non-publishable elements, the matter can be included in the publishable section with the non-publishable aspects written in red font. However, if by nature, the matter is very sensitive and has more confidential aspects, it may be helpful to have the matter in the confidential section. As mentioned earlier, Chambers pays equal attention to publishable and confidential matters.

The post Webinar Recap: Chambers & Partners Research Process – Key Insights, Submission Tips & Ranking Strategies appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

Benchmark Litigation is a directory dedicated to the world’s leading litigation firms and lawyers. Unlike general legal directories, it focuses exclusively on dispute resolution specialists, covering firms and practitioners across different industry sectors. Rankings are determined through extensive interviews with litigators and their clients, alongside analysis of significant cases and firm developments. The directory covers jurisdictions across the Americas, Asia-Pacific, and EMEA; this guide focuses specifically on the USA process.

Methodology

Benchmark Litigation’s research draws on firm questionnaires, attorney interviews, client and professional feedback surveys, news sources, and independent research. The key components are explained below:

The Submission Document

The case highlight section is the most important part of the submission. Firms should use it to present work highlights and summaries, spotlighting the lead partners on each matter. As only partners are ranked, there is no need to feature associates prominently. Confidential matters should be marked in red font for easy identification. It is also worthy of note that there is no limit to the number of matters that can be included on the submission.

The awards section is reserved for matters being put forward for the Impact Case Award. These should represent the firm’s most significant work, must not be confidential, and should ideally be concluded matters the firm has won.

Client and Professional Referees

The best referees are those who are accessible, willing to engage with researchers, and able to speak specifically to the firm’s practice and the partners involved. Where possible, referees should be linked to matters referenced in the submission. Co-counsel, opposing counsel, and retired judges are all acceptable as referees. There is no cap on the number of referees, though quality is more important than quantity.

Attorney Interviews

Benchmark also conducts interviews with partners. These interviews are considered more than a firm promotional opportunity. Peer review and market commentary are important elements of the interviews.

Firms are encouraged to proactively request interviews rather than wait to be contacted. Interview requests can be directed to:

• Michael Rafalowich — mrafalowich@benchmarklitigation.com
• Makenzie Rodrigues — makenzie.rodrigues@benchmarklitigation.com
• Blaike Parker — blaike.parker@benchmarklitigation.com

Interviews can be conducted by phone, video, or in person in New York. They can be booked from the start of the research period, even before the submission deadline, and will run until 27 June 2026.

Getting started

To participate, firms must:

• submit firm questionnaire and client/professional references on the Accreditation Portal
  • create account if the firm does not have an existing account. (HERE)
  • complete research form (link to the template HERE) and client referee template (HERE)
  • Ensure all eligible dispute resolution partners complete the practitioner survey once it becomes available.

Tips for Improved Rankings

• Register on the portal promptly.
• Observe submission deadlines; extensions can be requested and are usually granted within reasonable timeframes.
• Write clearly and directly. Researchers prefer plain language over legal jargon.
• Lead with the strongest cases. Since there is no limit on the number of matters included, ensure the most complex and significant work is not buried lower in the submission.
• Make sure the firm’s strongest partners during the research period are well represented. Rising stars deserve attention too.
• If any part of the firm’s practice is underrepresented or missing in the rankings, flag this in the submission and provide supporting evidence.

Rankings

Firm Rankings

Firms are ranked as either “recommended” or “highly recommended” depending on the volume of peer recommendations received. Rankings are further divided into National firms (dominant players with coast-to-coast recognition), and State firms (acknowledged as leaders within a single jurisdiction).

Lawyer Rankings

• Litigation star — established key players identified by peers and clients.
• National star — specialists in key practice areas recognised across the country, regardless of where they are based. National stars are also ranked locally by default.
• Future star — lawyers still building their reputations. Future stars cannot simultaneously hold National star designation.

Benchmark Special Honors List

In addition to its core rankings, Benchmark Litigation produces three special lists.

Benchmark 40 & Under

This list recognises law firm partners aged 40 or younger as of 1 August 2026, across the US and Canada. Nominees must hold partner status, and a confirmed date of birth must be provided for every candidate. To nominate, complete the relevant section of the US research questionnaire. Results are announced in August.

Benchmark Top 250 Women in Litigation

This list is compiled through several months of research into individual female litigators’ professional activities, supported by client feedback surveys and one-on-one interviews. It covers practitioners in the US and Canada. Nominees must hold partner status and are put forward via the Top 250 section of the US research questionnaire. Results are announced in August.

Both lists require the submission to be uploaded by the deadline.

Top 100 Trial Lawyers

This is a special feature list and accompanying novel editorial that will be appearing with the master edition in the fall of 2026. It will highlight the leading trial lawyers (as opposed to litigators) in the US as discovered during the Benchmark research.

2027 Cycle – Key dates  

Important Reminders

• One submission per firm, regardless of location or the number of practice areas covered.  
  • One referee document per firm.
  • No minimum or maximum on the number of cases, nominated lawyers, or referees.
  • Only partners are ranked in the USA.
  • Cases should ideally have been resolved in the past 12 months, though ongoing matters may be included if they are particularly innovative or significant.
  • Confidential cases may be included, and confidential information should be marked in red font.
  • The deadline for the 2027 research cycle is April 24, 2026.

Useful links

• Benchmark Litigation — Research methodology
  • US methodology
  • Recorded webinar

The post A Guide to Benchmark Litigation USA appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

The session featured Maria Barras, Chief Legal and Public Affairs Officer at Booking.com, and Lance Barthouw-Amius, General Counsel and Head of Legal Affairs Service at UNHCR, who shared their perspectives on how the role of in-house counsel is evolving, as well as their expectations of external law firms.

If you were unable to attend, we have summarised the key takeaways below.

Research overview

Chambers highlighted the continued growth in engagement across its research process.

Across all guides, more than 64,500 submissions were received, alongside over 90,000 interviews and more than 265,000 survey responses. For the Europe 2026 Guide specifically, over 11,500 submissions were received, with the final rankings including 1,645 law firms and 14,812 lawyers. In total, more than 13,700 interviews were conducted.

As highlighted during the webinar, it is this depth and consistency of research that allows Chambers to produce an accurate, year-on-year reflection of the legal markets it covers.

Updates to the Europe Guide

This year’s guide also includes several structural updates across jurisdictions.

In the Netherlands, Corporate M&A has been divided into three value-based tables. In Italy, standalone Litigation and Arbitration sections have been introduced, while in Spain, the Tax category now includes elite and higher regarded sub-tables.

All practice areas were reviewed based on the sophistication of work, team depth, client feedback and overall quality of service.

The evolving role of General Counsel

A key theme throughout the discussion was the increasing influence of in-house legal teams.

Maria Barras noted that, in both Europe and the US, between 70% and 85% of General Counsel now report directly to the CEO. This shift reflects the growing importance of legal within organisations and its closer alignment with business leadership.

She also highlighted a significant change in the composition of legal teams. Departments are becoming more multidisciplinary, incorporating a wider range of expertise beyond traditional legal roles. In her own team, approximately half are lawyers, while the other half include professionals from areas such as data, compliance and policy.

This reflects a broader shift in how legal departments operate, with responsibilities spanning value protection, business enablement and industry leadership.

Legal as a strategic function

The webinar also emphasised the increasingly strategic role of legal teams within organisations.

General Counsel are now more actively involved in leadership discussions and strategic planning. Being part of these conversations allows legal teams to contribute earlier in the decision-making process, helping shape strategy rather than simply reviewing it at a later stage.

This approach also helps position legal teams as enablers of the business, supporting execution rather than being perceived as a barrier.

The impact of AI

AI was another major focus of the discussion, with in-house teams already exploring its potential.

Maria Barras described how her team is actively experimenting with different tools and approaches, noting that this remains a period of exploration. She highlighted several key learnings:

• The importance of ongoing experimentation at both individual and team level
• The need to balance broad experimentation with focused, department-wide progress
• The role of AI in enhancing quality, not just improving efficiency
• A shift towards rethinking entire workflows, rather than simply automating individual tasks

Overall, AI was described as a catalyst for change, encouraging legal teams to rethink how they operate.

Expectations of law firms

The session also provided clear insight into what in-house counsel expect from external law firms.

Maria Barras emphasised the importance of receiving advice that supports decision-making, rather than advice that is overly cautious or difficult to apply in practice. She also noted that law firms should invest time in understanding the broader context in which their clients operate, including business priorities and strategic objectives.

Proactivity was another key theme. Law firms are expected to provide insights based on their wider market experience, helping clients understand how similar challenges are being addressed elsewhere.

More broadly, there is an expectation that law firms work closely with in-house teams, operating as a single, integrated team.

AI and law firms

AI is also shaping expectations of law firms.

From an in-house perspective, firms are expected to use these tools to improve speed of execution, deliver more data-driven insights and increase overall efficiency. At the same time, there is an expectation that firms are transparent about how AI is used and understand the associated risks.

The discussion also touched on the potential for AI to influence law firm business models, particularly in relation to pricing structures.

The UNHCR perspective

Lance Barthouw-Amius provided a perspective shaped by the unique environment in which UNHCR operates.

His team supports operations across multiple jurisdictions, often in complex and high-risk environments, where decisions need to be made quickly and based on imperfect information. This requires a highly practical, solution-oriented approach.

He highlighted several developments within his team, including increased legal sophistication, a growing focus on technology and AI, and stronger collaboration with law firms and private sector partners.

Working with law firms

From UNHCR’s perspective, strong partnerships with law firms are built on shared values and collaboration.

A genuine pro bono commitment is an important factor, but the focus is also on working together on matters that are strategically important. Law firms are expected to bring their full expertise to these engagements and to work as long-term partners.

Ongoing communication and feedback are also key to maintaining effective working relationships.

Final thoughts

The webinar highlighted how the role of in-house counsel continues to evolve.

Legal teams are becoming more influential, more integrated into business strategy and more open to new ways of working. As a result, expectations of law firms are also changing.

For firms looking to strengthen their position in legal directories, these insights provide a clear indication of what matters most to in-house clients today.

The post Webinar Watch: Chambers Europe 2026 Guide Launch appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

Progress on Representation and DEI

Improving the representation of women in rankings—alongside broader diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) concerns—remains a core priority for legal directories. Women still account for a minority of ranked lawyers globally, but progress continues at a steady pace. Recent guides show a continued incremental rise in the proportion of women recognised in individual rankings, building on year‑on‑year gains seen throughout the mid‑2020s. While the pace of change remains gradual, the consistency of this upward trend reflects sustained pressure from the profession and clients alike.

Directories are also increasingly analysing representation through a more nuanced lens, considering seniority, practice area disparities, and the pipeline from junior to leadership levels. This aligns with wider industry efforts to move beyond headline figures and address structural barriers to progression.

Alignment with Broader Industry Initiatives

These developments sit alongside a growing number of profession‑wide initiatives. In the UK, the Women in Law Pledgecontinues to encourage firms to set measurable gender diversity targets and report on progress, while in the US and other jurisdictions, organisations such as the Women in Law Empowerment Forum (WILEF) remain influential in benchmarking best practice for women in senior legal roles.

By 2026, pay transparency legislation in several jurisdictions and increased reporting requirements around workforce diversity have further sharpened focus on gender equity. Collectively, these initiatives aim to address persistent challenges including the gender pay gap, underrepresentation in leadership, and unequal access to high‑value work and sponsorship.

Initiatives by Legal Directories to Promote Women in Law

Legal directories have continued to evolve their own practices in response to these pressures:

• Dedicated Awards and Recognition: Chambers continues to recognise gender equity through its Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) Awards, which incorporate gender-focused categories within a broader framework. While Chambers previously ran Women in Law–branded awards, recognition is now embedded within its DEI programme, reflecting a more holistic approach to inclusion across the profession.
• Enhanced Diversity Metrics: Directories are placing greater emphasis on diversity data within submissions, encouraging firms to evidence inclusive cultures rather than relying solely on individual star performers. Categories such as Up & Coming and Rising Stars continue to play an important role in improving visibility for women earlier in their careers.
• Researcher Training and Bias Awareness: Ongoing and expanded training on implicit bias for researchers has become standard practice. In 2026, this increasingly includes guidance on intersectionality, helping researchers better assess feedback relating to women from underrepresented ethnic, socio‑economic, or neurodiverse backgrounds.
• Spotlights and Thought Leadership: Interviews, podcasts, and editorial features highlighting female legal leaders are now more closely tied to emerging themes such as legal technology, ESG, data regulation, and AI governance—areas where women are playing an increasingly visible role.

Women in Business Law (WIBL) Awards

The Women in Business Law Awards, organised by Euromoney Legal Media Group, continue to recognise leading women lawyers and law firms demonstrating meaningful commitment to diversity and inclusion. By 2026, the awards place greater emphasis on measurable impact—such as promotion rates, retention, and sponsorship outcomes—rather than policy statements alone.

Recent Developments and Trends

• Pipeline Strength: Women continue to represent a strong majority of law students in many jurisdictions, reinforcing optimism around the future talent pipeline, while attention has shifted toward retention and advancement at mid‑career and partnership levels.
• Leadership Visibility: High‑profile appointments of women to senior judicial, regulatory, and political legal roles over the past two years have reinforced the importance of visible leadership in driving cultural change across the profession.
• Innovation and Emerging Practice Areas: Awards and rankings in 2025 and early 2026 increasingly highlight women leading in areas such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, life sciences regulation, and climate‑related advisory work, reflecting the expanding influence of women in shaping the future of legal services.

Strategies for Women to Leverage Legal Directories

Women lawyers seeking recognition can continue to use directories strategically:

1. Build Compelling Submissions
   Clearly articulate leadership and impact. Use decisive, action‑oriented language—such as initiated, led, pioneered, or negotiated—and avoid minimising contributions.
2. Maximise Visibility
   Highlight speaking engagements, published thought leadership, media commentary, and internal leadership roles to demonstrate expertise beyond case work.
3. Emphasise DEI Contributions
   Where relevant, include mentoring, sponsorship, and involvement in DEI initiatives, particularly those with measurable outcomes.
4. Engage with Directory Communities
   Participation in directory‑hosted events, roundtables, and research briefings can strengthen professional networks and improve understanding of ranking criteria.
5. Seek Mentorship and Sponsorship
   Learning from peers and leaders who have successfully navigated the submissions process remains a valuable way to build confidence and strategic insight.

Impact of Recognition in Legal Directories

Recognition in leading legal directories continues to carry significant professional value. For women lawyers, it can enhance credibility with clients, support promotion and lateral opportunities, and reinforce visibility as a leader within a firm and the wider market.

Conclusion

As of 2026, legal directories remain powerful instruments for promoting women in law, but their role is increasingly sophisticated—moving beyond recognition alone to influencing behaviour, accountability, and cultural change. By engaging strategically with these platforms, women lawyers can strengthen their professional profiles, help reshape industry norms, and contribute to a more inclusive and representative legal profession.

The post Empowering Women in Law: Navigating Legal Directories for Recognition and Growth appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

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.