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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Chambers Asia-Pacific research

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

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

Asia-Pacific 2026 research stats

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

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

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

Asia-Pacific 2027

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

You can view the full schedule  here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. AI tools can be used

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewing the last submission cycle

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

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

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

Prioritising submissions

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

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

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

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

Reviewing key market trends and competitive analysis

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

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

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

Preparing to select matters

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

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

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

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

Capturing data

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

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

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

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

Partner involvement and approval

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

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

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

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

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

Submission deadlines and building a schedule

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

–

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

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