We chatted with Simon Christian, Global Research Director, and Al Marsh, UK Research Director on exactly what associates need to do to get that coveted ranking in Chambers & Partners.
In a nutshell, how would you describe Chambers & Partners?
Al: The world’s leading provider of data and analytics to the legal profession and the most prestigious and most widely used legal rankings employed by the top GCs globally.
Simon: We conduct independent research into law firms around the world, and our rankings help in-house counsel select the best lawyers for their most important matters.
Our research process is unrivalled in its quality, depth and accuracy, and is founded on the 70,000+ in-depth client and lawyer interviews we do every year, as well as surveys and submissions from the firms under consideration.
What are the most important things to consider/include when putting in a submission?
Al: The quality of the work highlights, the quality of the work highlights and the quality of the work highlights. You simply won’t get very far if you don’t have 20 impressive matters.
Simon: And those impressive highlight matters also need to be supported by strong, positive feedback from your referees.
What are the most annoying things law firms do when putting together submissions/referees?
Al: Not including matter values when it is obvious that they could have been included (e.g., a public M&A deal); referencing any accolades, particularly those awarded by Chambers’ direct competitors; not giving ranked lawyers work highlights (this sounds so obvious, but you’d be surprised how many firms manage it).
Simon: Prolixity and overuse of “marketing speak”. We set word limits on certain sections of the form for good reason.
Our researchers read lots of submissions, sometimes one after another, and long-winded puffery like “we are 100% committed to our clients’ best interests” (as opposed to what?) or “we handle the most complex, high value, market-leading matters” (we’ll be the judges of that) is even less persuasive when you’ve read much the same thing in 30 other firms’ submissions already.
The same goes for jargon: some may be unavoidable, but you should try always to explain things in terms that a well-educated non-lawyer can understand.
What would you say are the biggest benefits to an individual or firm being listed?
Al: There are almost too many to list but just a few include: recognition from an independent, trusted third party; the ability to leverage your prestigious ranking in pitch decks, social media, etc; the improved chances of winning new business and retaining and attaining top talent through your ranking.
Simon: If you’re an associate looking to make partner in the next few years, a listing in Chambers is a powerful external validation of your abilities and of your standing among the firm’s key clients. It’s also something recruiters will notice…
What advice would you give to an associate or senior associate who has submitted for a few years but still hasn’t been listed?
Al: Ask us why. There is a myriad of reasons as to why you haven’t been successful. Don’t suffer in silence, as it might be something easily fixed.
Simon: For instance, the firm might not have included you on any work highlights on the form. Or, you might not have been mentioned by the firm’s referees. We might have got some good commentary about you but not quite enough to include you this year, but which is still very promising for next year.
How can individuals who have been listed leverage their ranking?
Al: Shout about it! Put it on your bio, mention it on your LinkedIn, use it in pitches…
Simon: A ranking in Chambers should be used to support and corroborate all your other marketing and business development efforts. It’s an independent validation from a well-known and trusted brand that tells potential clients, referrers and competitors that you really are as good as your marketing says you are.
Al: … and don’t forget to learn the secret handshake that will get you into the most exclusive speakeasy in the city.
It can be difficult for an associate to stand out when the partners in their team dominate a submission – do you have any advice as to how they can overcome this?
Al: This is really a question for the person in charge of the submission: who do you want to focus on? With 20 work highlights to play with, you can give at least six lawyers a leading highlight each (more if some highlights are co-led). There should be room for some associates to appear on some work highlights – especially given that we expect associates to be assisting more than leading, much of the time.
Simon: I’d encourage associates to make sure their specific contributions to the firm’s highlight matters are recognised wherever possible. In the matter write-ups, for instance, you could say that “[Partner] had overall responsibility for this matter, including case strategy and client handling; [Associate] led on the jurisdiction issue, which was of vital importance at an early stage of proceedings and required complex analysis of the authorities…” etc.
Does it make it harder for someone to be listed if there are multiple associates put forward at the same time?
Al: Generally, a department will struggle to get more than one or two new individuals ranked for the first time in any given year. Therefore, trying to get, say, five lawyers into the rankings in one go isn’t a winning strategy. A lawyer debuting in the table will likely need multiple examples of positive client feedback.
Assuming this is a typical table where most departments have one to four ranked lawyers, try not to spread your referees too thinly between too many unranked lawyers.
Simon: Be strategic about which team members to focus on and keep trying if they aren’t successful at the first time of asking.
It’s frustrating to get some good information about an unranked lawyer, not quite enough for a ranking this year but showing great potential for next time, and then we never hear about that lawyer again because the firm thinks “well, they had their chance”.
What is the difference between ‘Up and Coming’, ‘Star Associates’ and ‘Associates to Watch’? Where do Senior Counsel fit in?
Al: Generally, if you are not a partner you will be ranked as an Associate to Watch or Star Associate. The fact that your firm doesn’t use the word “associate” in your job title doesn’t affect this. Non-partners can be ranked in the regular bands, but this usually happens when a lawyer has deliberately declined to join the partnership track.
As the name suggests, Star Associates are those that have accumulated extremely strong responses from their clients and have numerous examples of having led prestigious matters. Up and Coming individuals tend to be relatively new partners who have only recently begun to make serious waves.
Simon: We’d expect anyone aiming for an Up and Coming, Star Associate or Associate to Watch ranking to have strong feedback from the firm’s referees. Typically, an Up and Coming lawyer will have made partner within the last few years. They’ll be taking a lead role on matters listed on the submission and be developing a reputation at the partner level.
We typically don’t expect Associates to Watch to be leading highlight matters on the submission, but we would want to see them taking a supporting role in matters for the department’s most notable clients.
If you had to give associates one piece of advice, what would it be?
Al: Be pleasant to the members of your marketing department and don’t expect them to magic a Chambers ranking for you out of nowhere. It is possible that they are doing all the right things, but you might not be suitable for a ranking for another reason.
Simon: Or next year might be “your year”.
We will often have collected several years’ worth of commentary and analysis about someone before we eventually decide to include them as an Associate to Watch.
Make sure you’re included on the matter descriptions and that the firm’s referees can give an assessment of your work as well as the partners’.
Finally, remember that it’s an annual process and we make all our decisions afresh each year. So, don’t give up!
