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.

Understanding IFLR1000

IFLR1000 specializes in covering various aspects of corporate financial and transactional work across multiple practice areas. These areas include:

• Banking & Finance
• Capital Markets
• Financial Services Regulatory (FSR)
• Investment Funds
• M&A/Transactional Private Equity
• Project Development/Projects
• Restructuring and Insolvency

The importance and relevance of these practice areas can vary significantly based on jurisdiction as well as the volume of work conducted by the firms in those regions. Firms need to be particularly attentive to how they align their practices with IFLR1000’s requirements.

Submission Guidelines: The Portal is Key

One of the major updates emphasized during the webinar is that all submissions and referee lists must be submitted exclusively through the designated portal. It’s crucial to remember that submissions sent via email will not be accepted.

The portal offers several benefits, including:

• The ability to preview past submissions, providing an excellent reference point for crafting current submissions.
• Ensuring that when creating an account, it is done using the law firm’s official email domain, maintaining professional integrity.

Eligibility Requirements: What You Need to

Participate

To participate effectively in the IFLR1000 research process, firms must meet several criteria:

• Physical Presence: A tangible office must exist in the jurisdiction where the submission is being made.
• Local Licensing: Both the firm and the lawyers involved must be licensed to practice locally.
• Core Practice Areas: The firm should practice in one or more of the core areas defined by IFLR1000, ensuring their expertise aligns with the submission requirements.

Detailed Breakdown of the Research Form

The research form itself is structured with clear sections that demand careful consideration.

Section 1: Lawyer Nominations

• A new change this year, the first section exclusively focuses on new lawyers, specifically those who are currently unrated by IFLR1000. This change signifies a shift towards recognizing emerging talent within the legal industry.
• When nominating, it’s essential that all nominated lawyers work within the specified jurisdiction for the submission.

For lawyers who are already rated, maintaining their ratings hinges on several factors:

• The submission of  deal evidence showcased in Section 3 of the form.
• Gathering and considering both client and peer feedback, which are integral components of the evaluation process.

Notably, the Lawyer Survey has returned this year, providing an opportunity for self-nomination and allowing lawyers to present additional deal evidence.

What if the lawyer is rated for one practice area but not another?

• In that case you can put down the lawyer’s name for the other practice area.

Section 2: Overview of Practice

In this section, firms must present a comprehensive overview of their practice. This entails selling their unique competitive advantage to the IFLR evaluators. Relevant data regarding market share should be included, and firms are encouraged to provide information on their impact in the ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) space, if applicable.

Section 3: Prioritize Complex Deals

When it comes to Section 3, firms are directed to prioritize their top 10 deals that are characterized by complexity, impact, and innovation. It is critical not to leave the innovation section blank, as this could raise questions regarding the firm’s capacity for creative and impactful work—something that is vital in the eyes of IFLR’s research methodology. It is important to prioritize this section as it is the most decisive factor in IFLR’s research methodology

Referee Form Details

This year, IFLR is requesting feedback from only 20 referees per practice area. It is important to confirm with referees prior to listing them to maximize the likelihood of positive engagement. Each referee can provide insights on multiple lawyers, and it is recommended that about half of the referees can be linked to deals in the submission.

Moreover, firms can proactively inquire about the percentage of client feedback received, which can serve as a useful metric for understanding the firm’s standing.

Important Timetable to Note

Firms should be particularly aware of the key deadlines associated with the IFLR research cycle:

– Submission Deadlines fall on either February 12 or June 30 depending on your jurisdiction.

– Research interviews will take place from February to August.

– The lawyer survey will be sent out in March/April.

– Research publication dates are to be announced in early Spring 2025, with all firm and lawyer rankings being released simultaneously.

Good luck to all of those submitting this year! If you would like any help or assistance with your upcoming submissions, please feel free to reach out to our Tier One team.

The post Key Insights from the IFLR1000 Webinar appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

While Chambers has explicitly noted that it will not harm a firm’s submissions if mostly men are nominated, Chambers requests that a diverse selection of lawyers be put forward for nomination. This can offer a firm an advantage of featuring on a DEI Spotlight Table (only available in certain jurisdictions) which aims to highlight firms and individuals that are involved in impactful initiatives to advance DEI. Chambers runs DEI Awards in the following jurisdictions: USA, Latin America, Brazil, Europe (including UK solicitors), Asia Pacific and Greater China Region, and the UK Bar. Categories cover individual, firm and in-house submissions, as well as pro bono and sustainability efforts.

Chambers has been gradually improving their research process to consider DEI. To do so, Chambers collects gender diversity data on ranked lawyers and firmwide diversity data across a range of diversity markers at firm discretion for all guides in order to understand the profession’s demographic make up and ensure their rankings reflect the breadth of diversity. Chambers aims to speak to a diverse mix of lawyers and has set a target of holding 50% of our lawyer calls with women to get a broad range of perspectives.

Legal 500:

Legal 500 also encourages firms to put forward women nominees and has recently included a separate part in the initiatives section that welcomes firms to discuss their socio-cultural initiatives specifically. This information is incorporated into their evaluations and research to ensure the representation of diversity in their rankings.

Furthermore, Legal 500 often uses the data collected from their research to publish reports and blog posts on diversity within the legal sector in various jurisdictions, including insights into gender, racial and LGBTQ+ representation trends and challenges. These reports are a valuable tool to raise awareness and provide data which could help diversity initiatives.

Lastly, this year Legal 500 has launched its first-ever ESG Awards in the UK, with the ceremony taking place later this month. These Awards are aimed at championing diversity, inclusion and sustainability in the British legal sector. The scope is broad, with specific awards for LGBTQ+, ethnic, women and disability/neurodiversity representation and inclusion.

IFLR:

Like Legal 500, IFLR also has a specific section in its submission template for DEI asking firms to detail their achievements over the past year. While gender is not a direct factor in the rankings, this information is taken into account during research and evaluation. IFLR leverages its research findings to publish insightful articles and blog posts on ESG matters on their website, accessible to its members. This service is a valuable resource to those in the legal community as it raises awareness about diversity. 

IFLR also hosts the longstanding Women in Business Law Awards, which aims to honour outstanding women lawyers for their achievements in the legal profession and law firms that champion gender diversity. These awards are split into two jurisdictions, Americas and EMEA, and this year have adopted two new awards to recognize leading women attorneys: Thought Leader of the Year and ESG Leader of the Year.

Conclusion:

By recognizing and celebrating the diverse talents and contributions of individuals from underrepresented groups, these platforms not only promote a more inclusive legal profession but also pave the way for broader societal change. Let us continue to support and champion law firms in their DEI initiatives, fostering a more inclusive and equitable legal profession for all.

The post Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in Legal Directories appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

Legal 500 Individual Rankings

Hall of Fame – To be considered eligible for the Hall of Fame, lawyers must be widely regarded as being at the very top of the profession, and to have been consistently ranked as leading partner by The Legal 500 for a number of years. While in the past, elevation to the Hall of Fame was determined purely by reaching the requisite number of years as a leading partner, inclusion is now down to editor discretion.

Leading partners – Leading partners are defined as true market leaders, with long-established reputations in their sector, lead roles in multiple recent significant matters, and exceptional, widespread recognition and endorsement from peers in the market and clients alike.

Next generation partners – These individuals are lawyers with (generally) five years or fewer at partner level, significant recognition from clients and peers in the market, and recent lead roles on multiple matters.

Leading associates – Leading associates are defined as associate-level lawyers who appear frequently in significant matters and are widely cited by peers and/or clients as having made major contributions to practices.

Recommended individuals – All individuals mentioned in the editorial, either in firm write-ups, client testimonials, as heads of practice or other key lawyer listings, should be regarded as recommended lawyers in The Legal 500. 

Chambers Individual Rankings

Bands 1-6 –  Individual lawyers are ranked in bands from 1 (highest) to 6 (lowest). Being ranked in any band is a significant achievement which recognises the individual as a standout in their field.

Senior Statesperson – A lawyer who no longer works hands-on with the same intensity but who, by virtue of close links with major clients, remains pivotal to the firms success. This ranking is generally only granted to those who have reached the highest Band rankings. 

Eminent Practitioner – Highly influential lawyers in a particular practice area who, due to managerial or client relationship commitments, are less active in fee-earning work but remain key players in the team. This ranking is generally only granted to those who have reached the highest Band rankings.

Star – This ranking is given to lawyers with exceptional recommendations in their field. Keep in mind that there can only be one Star in any ranking table, and often there are none. 

Up-and-Coming –  Lists those who do not yet have an established reputation to match those in ranked in the Bands but who are driving their firm’s growth.

Associate-to-Watch – Senior associates who are recognised for their work in the background of major deals.

Star Associate – Awarded to an associate who consistently demonstrates an outstanding degree of technical and commercial expertise beyond that of their peers. As with the Star ranking, this can only be given to one individual in a ranking table and is often not awarded at all. 

Spotlight – A ‘Spotlight’ ranking is given to individuals where the table does not have numerical rankings. All ‘Spotlight’ rankings are equal and the ranking serves to highlight a select group of firms or individuals. This is most often seen when highlighting a small or niche area, or a new ranking in which Chambers is still figuring out how best to structure the ranking table. 

IFLR Individual Rankings

Market Leader – Partners who are the true leaders in their practice area(s) and jurisdiction in the eyes of clients and peers, with clear records of leading on the most high-profile, innovative and complex deals in their markets.

Women Leader – To be ranked Women Leader, lawyers must meet the criteria for Market Leader (stated above) or must hold high status within their market for their leadership abilities. See ‘Women Leaders’ section for more detail.

Highly Regarded – Partners who have outstanding deal records in the practice in question and are highly regarded by clients and peers.

Expert Consultant – Senior figures with name recognition who focus on consulting and building client relationships. These are individuals who may stepped back from the active client work to serve as rainmakers or figureheads for a practice.

Rising Star Partner – Lawyers who made partner relatively recently who are working on complex deals and are recommended by clients or peers. To be eligible for this rating, lawyers must have made partner within three years of the current submission deadline. Only lawyers who were promoted to partner within three years of the submission deadline are eligible for this rating.

Rising Star – Ones to watch – lawyers building their reputations in the market who are working on notable deals and are recommended by clients or peers. Only non-partners who qualified within 15 years of the submission deadline are eligible for this rating. Eligible candidates cannot have made partner and must have no more than 15 years post qualification experience.

Notable Practitioner – Lawyers supported records of advising on significant deals in the jurisdiction and practice area in question.

Whilst this may seem like a fairly sizeable glossary of different ranking terms, there are some key similarities and differences which should hopefully simplify what these rankings mean to you. 

• Hall of Fame vs Market Leader vs Band 1: The Legal 500 Hall of Fame and IFLR Market Leader rankings are reserved for those who are widely regarded as at the top of their fields. Whilst Chambers don’t have an exact ranking criteria like these, it could be equated to longstanding Band 1 practitioners in Chambers. 
• Leading Partners vs Highly Regarded vs Bands 1-6: One of the first things you should notice when comparing these rankings is that the Legal 500 Leading Partners lists are generally considerably shorter than the Chambers Bands rankings and IFLR Highly Regarded rankings. This is due to the fact that a Leading Individual ranking is akin to a Band 1/2  ranking in Chambers and is really only awarded to those they consider true market leaders, so do not be discouraged if you are ranked in the Chambers bands and IFLR Highly Regarded yet not in Legal 500’s Leading Partners list! 
• Up-and-Coming vs Rising Star Partner vs Next generation partner: These rankings are much the same in practice. With this ranking the directories are aiming to recognise younger partners who are making a name for themselves but have yet to achieve the recognition of those ranked as in the Bands or as a Leading Partner. It is important to note here that there is no guarantee an individual will automatically make the jump to the next ranking after they have been ranked for several years, so it is important to continue demonstrating their leading role within their practice. 
• Leading associate vs Rising star vs Associate-to-Watch: Once again, these rankings are very much the same. These rankings are aimed at highlighting key associates within practices that are active on major deals and receive recognition from peers and/or clients. 
• Expert Consultant vs Eminent Practitioner: Once again, these rankings are very much the same. You will most often see managing partners and senior partners here who are recognised as rainmakers for their practice. Legal 500 does not have an equivalent ranking. 
• Recommended Lawyer vs Notable Practitioner: This ranking differs from the others in that it is how Legal 500 and IFLR recognise practices’ other key practitioners who don’t meet the criteria of the other rankings. Chambers does not have an equivalent ranking.  

You may be asking why I haven’t made further mention of the Women Leader, Star, Star Associate, or Spotlight rankings, and that would be simply because each of these rankings are unique to their guides. For each of these specific recognitions you need only refer to the description provided to see how it applies to you. 

Hopefully, newly armed or refreshed with this information, the guide launches will be less ambiguous and you should feel more confident as to both where you currently stand and where you hope to see yourself ranked in future editions.

The post Directories Individuals Rankings Explained appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

Having launched in 2024, the Legal Media Group (LMG) DEI Awards cast a spotlight on pioneering achievements within law firms and among practitioners across EMEA, Canada, the United States, and Latin America.

This inaugural initiative is positioned to celebrate diversity, foster inclusivity, and acknowledge excellence within an industry that holds a pivotal role in shaping our legal terrain.

The LMG DEI Awards transcend mere commendations; they signify a dedication to advocating for DEI principles within the legal sphere. These awards seek to recognize individuals and firms not only for their embrace of diversity but also for their active efforts in cultivating inclusive environments where all individuals are esteemed and respected. In doing so, these firms position themselves to better address the diverse needs of their clients and communities.

Award Categories

The Awards recognise individuals and initiatives that serve as catalysts for change within the legal industry. These champions break down barriers, challenge biases, and foster environments where diversity thrives. Subject matters include:

• Race & Ethnicity: Recognising efforts to support diverse ethnic minorities.
• LGBTQ+: Honouring initiatives supporting the LGBTQ+ community.
• Disability: Acknowledging programs for individuals with visible and non-visible disabilities.
• Social Mobility: Celebrating initiatives aimed at addressing socio-economic barriers.
• Religion: Recognizing efforts to promote inclusivity across faith-based groups.

Firm Awards

The Firm Awards acknowledge law firms and practitioners for their dedication to diversity, equity, and inclusion. These awards highlight firms that have implemented effective strategies and policies to create inclusive workplaces.

Diversity Leader Awards

The Diversity Leader Awards recognise individuals who advocate for diversity, equity, and inclusion within the legal profession. These leaders drive positive change in various subject matters, fostering inclusivity at every level.

In-House Team Awards

The In-House Team Awards honour corporate teams that demonstrate a commitment to DEI within their workplaces. These teams implement initiatives that foster inclusivity and create diverse and equitable environments.

General Counsel Awards

The General Counsel Awards recognize top-ranking in-house lawyers who champion diversity, equity, and inclusion. These advocates play a crucial role in promoting DEI principles within their organisations and beyond.

Hall of Fame

The Hall of Fame Award is the highest honour, bestowed upon individuals who have demonstrated extraordinary commitment to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion. These trailblazers inspire positive change on a broad scale and remain staunch advocates for DEI principles.

Part of IFLR’s suite of services, the awards will open for the EMEA region on April 4 2024, with a submission deadline of May 9. The shortlist will be announced on July 18 and the Awards Gala will take place this September.  The submission deadline (March 1) has passed for Canada, USA and Latin America.

More information and the relevant forms can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/yedxn62r

The post Introducing the LMG DEI Awards 2024 appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

This can be frustrating for all parties involved, from lawyers to the BD team, particularly as the directories do not automatically communicate the rationale behind every decision to participating firms.

At Tier One Rankings, here are some tips, based on our decades of experience working at the directories, on how to best overcome this frustration and ensure that you put your best foot forward for next year:

Step 1. Conduct An Internal Review

The most common reasons for a demotion/non-ranking are often related to:

• Did your firm provide enough work? Both Chambers and Legal 500 permit a maximum of 20 matters and recommend that you send over the full amount. Firms that send over fewer than a dozen or so matters are unlikely to achieve any positive results, especially if they are currently unranked.
• Did your firm describe the work highlights in sufficient detail? A crucial criterion for both directories is the quality of the work, and this cannot be accurately assessed when firms only write a sentence or two for each matter. If the table was transactional in nature, were enough deal values disclosed? This a crucial gauge for researchers that is often overlooked.
• Did you fail to showcase a broad breadth of work? If, for example, your Commercial, Corporate and M&A submission focused on too many private equity deals, or had an overwhelming number of matters within a specific industry, this could be a likely cause for demotion. The scope of work is one of the most important considerations after the assessment of its quality. Whilst it is important to play to your strengths, the highest ranked firms will be able to showcase their abilities across that practice area.
• Was all the work relevant to the table you submitted for? For example, did you include an abundance of energy/construction/project matters in a real estate submission? This can be double-checked by referring to the respective practice area definitions.
• Did you have any major partner departures? This is a very common reason for demotion, especially if the departing lawyer was ranked on an individual basis- directories may therefore conclude that a team is weaker than previously.
• Did you fail to include enough new instructions? Both directories understand that the most complex matters will span multiple years, but firms should be sure to relay that their practice continues to thrive by providing at least a handful of new instructions. Ongoing matters should also be updated to focus on what has occurred over the last 12 months.
• How was your referee response rate? If it was particularly low, you should certainly consider providing more easily reachable contacts for the next research cycle. Directories such as Chambers offer features such as the Research Management Tool to help keep track of responses.

Step 2. Seek Feedback Internally

Discuss the ranking results with your team, partners, and colleagues. Get their insights and input on where improvements can be made. Were there any changes in the preparation of the submissions these years, and could these have had a detriment on their quality?

Step 3. Check the Editorial for Clues

The editorial produced by directories is often overlooked as a source of information, but it will actually give you a lot of clues about why some law firms are ranked higher than others. Read all the editorial for the practice area and make notes about what type of work is being mentioned the most often. These types of work will be what the directories are value the most. Consider what your teams strengths are vs these areas that get are getting praised. If your practice is already strong in these areas, make sure you are emphasising that work in your next submission. If you are better known for other areas of work, you can build an argument that your team has unique strengths that other ranked firms don’t.

Step 4. Contact the Directories for Feedback

Both Legal 500 and Chambers will provide a limited amount of feedback in most circumstances, which should be enough to point you in the right direction for next year.

A simple sentence such as ‘We felt that your submission focused too heavily on leasing matters, whereas the firms above showed a greater breadth’ can be all you require to better prepare next year’s submission.

Firms who would like a more detailed breakdown will also have the option of purchasing premium products such as Research Plus and Chambers Insight.

Step 5. See the Bigger Picture

The rankings are influenced by various factors and are fundamentally comparative in nature. It may be a case that your submission was just as strong as in previous years, but a number of your competitors improved.

It is worth keeping a tab on the firms above you, especially those who have received promotions, and noting any developments that may have positively influenced their positions e.g., the growth of the team, several standout cases, or increased activity within a particular sector.

Patience and persistence are key. The directories keep track of your performance year-on-year and factor in your recent track record.

If you were expecting a promotion on this occasion and felt that there was a notable uptick in the quality of your submission, this was most likely noted by the directory. It may simply be that they are taking a wait and see approach, particularly when it comes to promotions at the very top of the table. In this case, it is important to stay patient and persist- if your team continues to excel over a few years, you will eventually achieve that recognition.

Finally, the directories can only work with the information you provide to them. T meaning that firms need to be on top of any developing assumptions and ensure that these are countered by the relevant evidence.

The post The Ultimate Comeback: Tier One Tactics for Overcoming Chambers Rankings Setbacks appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

From the Lawyers’ Perspective: Lawyers approach directory submissions with a desire to showcase their prowess comprehensively. This often involves delving into complex case specifics and legal nuances, utilizing elaborate legal terminology to underscore their accomplishments. The aim is to present a detailed and comprehensive picture of their expertise.

The Researchers’ Viewpoint: On the other side of the spectrum, researchers tasked with evaluating these submissions seek clarity, impact, and contextual narratives. They prioritize concise, results-oriented descriptions that effectively communicate key achievements, highlight the significance of cases, and emphasize the value delivered to clients. Researchers look for information that is not only informative but also digestible and to the point.

Bridging the Gap: The challenge lies in finding a middle ground that satisfies both parties. To create impactful submissions, lawyers should focus on emphasizing outcomes, client impact, and succinct case studies. This involves striking a delicate balance between providing essential details and presenting content in a reader-friendly manner that resonates with researchers.

Know Your Audience: It’s crucial for lawyers to keep in mind that researchers handle a substantial volume of submissions during each cycle. Therefore, clarity and brevity significantly aid their review process. Crafting submissions that are clear, concise, and directly relevant to the criteria set by the directories not only expedites the review process but also bolsters the chances of being recognized.

In conclusion, aligning lawyers’ aspirations with researchers’ needs in legal directory submissions involves understanding the importance of clear communication and the significance of presenting information in a format that is both informative and easily digestible. By recognizing and addressing these needs, legal professionals can enhance the effectiveness of their submissions and maximize their visibility within the legal community.

The post Legal Directory Submissions: What Lawyers Want vs. What Researchers Need appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

How are the rankings determined?

The IFLR1000 rankings are determined based on a comprehensive evaluation process that involves the following four key components:

1. Deal Highlight:

This aspect focuses on the significant legal transactions and projects undertaken by law firms. It assesses the complexity, innovation, and impact of these deals, allowing firms to showcase their expertise in various practice areas.

2. Client Survey:

Client feedback plays a crucial role in the IFLR1000 rankings. The client survey component involves obtaining input from clients who have worked with the law firm during the research period. The survey seeks to gauge client satisfaction, the effectiveness of legal services, and the overall client-firm relationship.

3. Partner Interviews:

Partner interviews provide an opportunity for IFLR1000 researchers to engage directly with key partners at law firms. These interviews delve into the firm’s capabilities, expertise, and notable achievements. Partners may provide insights into the strategic direction of the firm and elaborate on their roles in significant deals.

4. Lawyer Survey:

The lawyer survey is a critical component and will be relied on more heavily this year, especially in light of the change from evaluating 20 matters to 10. It allows lawyers, especially junior lawyers nominated in the Rising Stars categories, to highlight their individual contributions. This survey provides a more nuanced view of the firm’s talent pool and acknowledges the diverse contributions of legal professionals.

Why the Shift from 20 Matters to 10?

• The shift from evaluating 20 matters to 10 is a strategic move aimed at enhancing the competitive aspect of rankings. The change encourages law firms to focus on the most impactful and impressive projects, providing detailed insights into innovative, impactful, and challenging cases.

What are the main guidelines when crafting the work highlights: 

• Context is Key: avoid leaving sections blank, as it makes it harder for researchers to judge.
• Ensure that you are looking at practice areas relevant to your jurisdiction and reviewing the definitions before selecting matters.
• Provide articulate and digestible information that can be easily benchmarked against other firms.
• Focus on the most impactful work and explain why a case was innovative, impactful, or challenging.
• Deal Values: Include deal values when possible. 
• DEI & ESG: Fill in information related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, as well as Environmental, Social, and Governance initiatives. It can demonstrate the firms level of sophistication. 

How many referees can I include?

• Include as many client referees as possible, picking those willing to participate.
• Inform clients beforehand to increase engagement
• Nominate referees capable of providing comparative, tailored feedback about lawyers and the firm. This feedback is more valuable to your ranking than a generic one. 

Please note: IFLR1000 is also considering introducing client discovery calls to enhance the quality of feedback so your refers may be approached to set up a call. 

How can I boost my individual ranking? 

• Add significant work in the work highlights
• Use the lawyer nomination section of the submission to make your case in a short concise matter that is relevant for the research period, highlight evidence, wins, and recognitions, and DON’T repeat your website biography information. 
• Provide valuable, available referees.
• The lawyer survey – given the change from 20 matters to 10, the lawyer survey provides an opportunity for all lawyers, especially rising star partners, and rising star associates to showcase their contributions. 

If I was interviewed last year, will I be interviewed this year as well?

IFLR1000 tries to rotate the firms getting interviewed to get an objective view of the market so you may not be approached year after year. However, firms can reach out to IFLR1000 if they wish to participate in partner interviews.

Staying informed about the IFLR1000’s ranking criteria and incorporating the recommended tips into your submissions will not only enhance your firm’s visibility but also contribute to a more accurate and comprehensive assessment of your legal expertise.

The post IFLR1000 2024: Insights from a Q&A Webinar by IFLR1000 Global Editor, Danielle Ngwana-Joseph  appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

What’s changed?

The big game changer is that there is now a maximum of 10 deal examples, rather than 20. IFLR is calling on firms to be selective, emphasising the need for quality over quantity.

Market Leaders, Highly Regarded and Woman Leader nominations have been condensed into a single section – with an unlimited number of suggestions.

Rising Star Partner, Rising Star Lawyer and Expert Consultant nominations now have a maximum of three suggestions per category – down from five in the previous format.

The main shop window (i.e. the firm’s practice strengths) has been condensed into a single box that details what the firm is best known for in the market – note that there is now a strict limit of 500 words here (as seen in Chambers).

The Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) section now has a strict limit of 250 words.

What’s new?

An Environment/Climate section to provide details of the firm’s environmental (climate and carbon reduction) strategies, highlighting their achievements since January 1, 2023 – this has a strict limit of 250 words.

A list of key publishable clients (seen also in Chambers and Legal 500 submissions) – there is a maximum of 5 names to be listed here.

A brief section on referral work to other law firms.

In line with the other directories, a section for feedback on other law firms.

There have been a number of changes to the format of deal highlights – the most notable being the removal of external links to input data, allowing for a much smoother process. Below is an infographic that presents the differences:

2023 (LEFT) 2024 (RIGHT)

The post Navigating the Changes to the IFLR1000 Template for 2024 Research appeared first on Tier One Rankings.

Often left until the last minute, referees are crucial in legal directories submissions, sometimes weighing almost equally to work highlights in firm rankings and even more so for individual rankings. This holds especially true in esteemed guides such as Chambers and Partners. They’re not just contacts; they offer invaluable, first-hand insights into a firm’s or lawyer’s capabilities, validating the claims articulated in submissions.

Understanding the genuine potential of referees in submissions is a game-changer. Those who recognize this aspect’s significance are already reaping its rewards. Curious to learn how? Let me guide you, step by step:

Before Submission – Strategically Choosing Referees:

• Availability and Willingness: Referees must be accessible and responsive, willing to engage in a brief 5-10 minute call. Avoid the trap of selecting overly occupied CEOs. Opt instead for individuals with whom you share a strong rapport and who are amenable to a gentle reminder when the time comes.
• Comprehensive Insight: Prioritise clients with a deep understanding of the team’s reputation, collaborating within the last 18 months. Those capable of elaborating on multiple lawyers can save space within the 20-30 referee limit.
• Knowledge of Team Strengths: Seek referees capable of articulating the team’s specific strengths and the involvement of individual lawyers. In-house counsel, equipped with both responsiveness and legal expertise, often outshine busy CEOs in this aspect.
• Diverse Options: Consider engaging professionals beyond clients like accountants, surveyors, or colleagues. Referrals from law firms in different jurisdictions can offer unique insights without posing competition.

During Submission – The Nitty-Gritty Tips:

• Understand the “3 month rule”: Chambers won’t contact a referee reached within 3 months. If a referee is open for re-contact, you may request Chambers to reach out.
• Referee Information Filling: Fill in the column titled referring lawyer(s), it will help point the researcher in the right direction when talking to the referee.
• Firewall Tips: avoid government email addresses to prevent potential email blocking if possible.

Post-Submission – Contacting Referees:

• Safe Senders: Encourage referees to add ‘@chambers.com‘ to the safe senders list.
• Survey Navigation: Ensure referees understand the survey process, particularly for recommending lawyers not listed (“+add individual” button).
• Timing and Communication: Use the Chambers Referee Management Tool to track and remind clients if needed. For any issues, Chambers offers support.
• Seek assistance: Should you encounter any issues or come across an unexplained ‘error’ within the RMT, don’t hesitate to contact Chambers.

2025 UPDATE: My Top Recommendation for Avoiding Referee Issues

After experimenting with the system for two years and holding multiple meetings with the RMT team at Chambers, my number one suggestion is this: submit all referees as early as possible. If you’re dealing with several deadlines across multiple jurisdictions, aim to submit all referees before the first deadline—even though I know how challenging this can be when juggling numerous practice areas!

Here’s why it’s worth the effort:

1. Early Submission Mitigates Issues: Submitting referees early allows you to identify and resolve any problems well before the research process begins.
2. Streamlined Contact Across Practice Areas: By submitting future deadlines alongside the current one, you ensure referees are contacted for all relevant practice areas, potentially bypassing the three-month rule and improving response rates.

The key takeaway is simple: early submission gives you a significant advantage.

Effectively engaging referees, chosen strategically, significantly fortifies the credibility and authenticity of legal directory rankings. They stand as crucial assets within the submission process.

The post Let’s talk about referees appeared first on Tier One Rankings.