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.

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

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

Research findings: Global trends

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

Research findings: The Middle East

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

Research findings: Africa

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

Regulatory complexity

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

AI development

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

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

How law firms are using AI

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

ESG

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

What GCs expect from external counsel

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

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

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

Key dates

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

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

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

Other deadlines mentioned were:

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

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

What’s new?

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

Submission forms

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

Eligible period

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

Practice areas

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

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

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

Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B) Matter selection (what makes the cut)

For each shortlisted matter, confirm:

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

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

Use the 5 Ws in ~5–8 lines:

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

Final pass

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

D) Referee plan (the controllable lever)

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

E) Team + individuals (visibility with proof)

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

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

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

G) Final QA (submit-ready checks)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some important dates reminders first

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

What’s new?

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

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

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

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

Submission

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

Referees

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

Awards

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

Additional Helpful Information

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

Here are some helpful links:

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

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

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.