As law firms chew over their rankings in the latest editions of the two big legal directories, The Brief speaks to experts about how they can improve their performance next time
Autumn: the season when the nights draw in, middle-aged parents bore their trick-or-treating children with tales of penny-for-the-Guy and ducking for apples, and lawyers pore over the latest editions of the legal directories to see how they have ranked compared to the competition.
And then, in many cases, they resolve to make a better job of next year’s submission: to have a plan, to start in good time and not to throw it together at the last minute.
But what makes a good submission to Chambers or the Legal 500?
Strategic approach
Victoria Moffatt is a non-practising solicitor and managing director the legal PR and directories consultancy LexRex. She says, “Whenever I start working with a law firm on their legal directories, I always ask what their strategy is. This is because, like any other marketing project, the legal directories process should be treated strategically.
“I also like to get a good understanding of the marketing strategy, and in an ideal world both strategies align. The next step is to then build a directories strategy that supports both.
“In real terms, this might be as simple as prioritising directories submissions for the teams that the firm has identified as key for future growth. Alternatively, it might be suggesting that certain teams stop submitting altogether, or that the firm considers putting some budget towards legal directories profiles.”
She points out, however, that neither of the two major directories is “pay-to-play”, and that taking out a paid-for profile won’t boost your ranking. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth investing in paid-for features, which “can add significant value” following recent upgrades to both Chambers’ and the Legal 500’s websites – but it’s not essential, and you can’t “enhance” your listing with a profile until you actually have a ranking anyway.
Referees
Jennifer King, vice president at the PR firm Infinite Global, puts her finger on the reason many directory submissions fail to achieve the desired results.
She says, “It’s not unusual for law firms to spend weeks gathering information and writing their legal directory submission – then, as the deadline rapidly approaches, they turn their attention to the referee spreadsheet and scramble to select referees. That’s a mistake.
“Referee feedback is a critical part of the legal directory ranking process, and although legal directories don’t disclose exactly how referee feedback is weighted, by most accounts referee feedback is far more important than the firm’s written submission.
“Firms should focus on curating a fresh group of referees each year, ensuring the individuals are willing to speak with researchers, and can knowledgeably discuss the firm, its lawyers and the wider legal market.
“Don’t leave it to chance. Instead, think about how you can prep your referees to ensure that they’re providing useful feedback to the directories. It can be as simple as a brief email from the relationship partner that summarises recent work the firm has handled for the client, and which lawyers were involved.
“But some firms create elaborate one-page summaries for referees, divided into sections addressing the various research criteria so referees have examples they can use when providing feedback.
Some might argue that this is gaming the system, but I’d disagree. I’ve spoken to countless referees over the years, and none will share feedback they disagree with, but they all appreciate resources that make it easier to provide feedback.
Moffatt also has a tip when it comes to referees – if possible don’t go too senior.
"Ideally referees won’t be GCs or hold top-level or c-suite positions. Those referees will potentially already feature in the referee spreadsheets of other firms, and to include them often reduces your prospects of good feedback.
"Instead, consider whether there are other referees who are perhaps slightly less senior but with whom you have strong working relationships and who are still able to discuss the quality and style of your work," she explains.
Work highlights
After referees, the second-most important element of any submission is the work highlights/matter summaries. Again, in many cases these are completed at the last minute, long after the far less significant elements at the beginning of the forms (of course it’s important to compose a good practice description, but you’re obviously going to say good things about yourself, so it’s of limited relevance to your ranking).
When drafting work highlights, Moffatt says, “The advice from the directories’ editorial teams is always, naturally, to keep things brief, but I do also think that the case studies that stand out are those that are memorable. We’re all human at the end of the day, so I write my submissions for humans!”
When it comes to ranking a team, the researchers are looking for “bench strength”, so when selecting work highlights and drafting summaries it is wise to make sure all partners/leading lawyers are well-represented, and also that the more junior lawyers in the team are mentioned wherever possible. The ability to provide a consistent service when the stars aren’t available is an important element in any ranking.
It is also vital to ensure that you keep it relevant. Moffatt says, “My best ever tip for any legal directories submissions is to ensure that you are familiar with, and continue to refer to, the practice area definition for each relevant practice area.
“The work that your team does may span more than one practice area so be mindful of this risk and ensure that each and every case study is relevant to the correct definition.
Adding matters that fall outside of scope is simply a waste of your time, it makes your team look sloppy and won’t help your submission.
The right tone
While referees and work highlights carry the most weight in the ranking process, it is important to make sure that all elements of the form are completed to a high standard. According to Moffat you should “draft for university-educated non-lawyers”.
Often these sections of the form will be taken on by marketing or PR departments. In larger firms, making many submissions, this can be a major undertaking.
Sarah Webster is a senior writer at the PR agency Definition, which has started using AI to support its work. She was previously head of PR at Norton Rose Fulbright, and consultant to several other law firms.
She says, “I know how much the directories matter, but also how much time they take, and that’s where I think AI can make a big difference. We have already started talking to law firms who want to improve the quality of their entries, and cut the time it takes, all while keeping the critical confidentiality they need.
I still remember the stress of the directories. The sheer volume of entries can be scary. We’d have smoke coming out of our computers a few months, weeks or even days before the directories’ deadlines.
“A lot of the time, they’re not even officially in the business development team’s job description, so they’re short on time but the stakes are impossibly high, with partners – understandably – feeling stressed about where they’ll rank.
“Now it’s my job to get great writing into the directories so they stand out – by making them punchy and clear, for instance (too many submissions are ridiculously waffly). So, I’m working with our AI team to learn from the very best submissions, and speed the whole process up so we improve the quality but slice through the volume.
“We want to give time back to the Business Development teams so they’re focusing on the finer details, instead of hacking through mounds of deal and team information.”
Visit
Connect with Jennifer King via LinkedIn
Connect with Victoria Moffatt via LinkedIn
Connect with Sarah Webster via LinkedIn
