Amongst the influx of celebratory LinkedIn posts, a good number of individuals or teams are usually disappointed with their rankings.
Perhaps they feel their submission didn’t reflect the strength of their practice, or their referees didn’t deliver the feedback they were expecting. Legal directory rankings can be a powerful tool for your practice, so when results fall short of expectations, it’s natural to question where things went wrong.
For many firms, paying the directories for feedback isn’t an option.
However, there are some practical steps you can take to troubleshoot and improve your future submissions without the extra expense.
Here are some potential issues that may have contributed to your ranking falling short.
Referees
- You didn’t warm up your referees
Did you remind your referees ahead of time that they’d be contacted, and explain why their feedback was so important?
- Your referees were too senior or too busy to respond
Did you select referees who were realistically available to respond promptly, rather than those who might not prioritise the request?
- Your referees were listed by multiple firms
Chambers generally contacts referees only once per submission cycle, even if multiple firms list them. Due to their ‘3-month rule,’ referees will not be re-contacted within three months of their last feedback request. If you selected referees who were also listed by other firms, they may not have provided feedback specifically on your submission. Learn more about Chambers’ approach to referees here.
- You didn’t provide enough referees
Did each leading individual have at least three strong referees who could vouch for their capabilities?
- Your referees weren’t briefed
Did your referees understand what to expect and know the key areas they should focus on in their feedback?
Leading individuals and team members
- You didn’t have enough leading individuals
Legal 500 recognises and highlights leading individuals who demonstrate consistent, high-quality work and impact in their field. If your submission lacked a sufficient number of these standout individuals, it may not have reflected your firm’s full strength. Did you identify and feature enough key individuals who could be distinguished as leaders?
- Your leading individuals didn’t have enough references
Were your leading individuals each supported by at least three quality referees, ideally connected to standout matters?
- The rest of the team members weren’t well-represented
It’s easy to centre your matters around your leading individuals, but you also need to demonstrate depth and breadth for the wider team. It needs to be a balancing act.
- Referees weren’t tied to your standout matters
At least some of your referees should be able to speak to significant, high-value matters you have handled. Quality is more important than quantity (particularly when it comes to the Legal 500 where there is no cap on referees).
Matter descriptions
- You didn’t provide 20 matters
Unless you’re working in a brand-new area of law with developing case law, you should be submitting the full 20 matters to demonstrate depth and consistency.
- Your matters didn’t show the full scope of your expertise
Did the matters you submitted cover a wide range of work, showcasing your team’s versatility and unique strengths?
- Your matter descriptions weren’t clearly explained
Provide concise but comprehensive descriptions of the matters, including the complexity, your team’s role, and the outcome. Remember that the researcher is usually a layperson, so if the matter is overly complex, the important facts can easily get lost.
