In a recent survey by the Law Firm Marketing Club (further info below), 66% of law firm clients said rankings in the Legal 500 or Chambers were a part of their decision to choose a law firm.
So in this month’s Trifecta, and with the 2026 deadlines fast approaching, we’re taking a deep dive into Legal 500 submissions – what makes a strong one, common pitfalls to avoid, and how to maximise your chances of ranking success.
To give us an inside perspective, we’re joined by two Legal 500 editors: Amy Ulliott, Editor for the UK Regions, and Cameron Purse, Editor for London.
Amy has conducted research across multiple jurisdictions and has also served as Caribbean editor and Nordic editor during her time at the Legal 500. Alongside his role on the London research, Cameron is also a key contributor to Legal Business’ private equity coverage, including the Private Equity Elite, which covers the top GCs in private equity.
With their insights, we’ll uncover how law firms can refine their approach, highlight their strengths, and put forward the best possible case in their Legal 500 submissions.
Strategy & approach
1. What are the key elements that make a submission stand out?
Amy: The primary element we are looking at is the work, which should demonstrate consistent involvement in high-profile, complex and/or innovative matters. These don’t need to get bogged down in the legal details but should clearly and succinctly highlight the work handled and make the case as to why this is a standout matter from the last 12 months. Beyond that, we want to see evidence of great clients – both new and longstanding; team changes, and evidence of the lawyers’ individual credentials, all aimed at providing a well-rounded picture of the practice and its people.
Cameron: A strong submission is a transparent submission. We want firms to be as upfront as possible – not only about their wins but about their losses too. If a number of partners have left, or a key client has gone elsewhere, we will invariably find out for ourselves. It’s always best to tell us directly.
2. How should firms balance showcasing individual lawyers versus the strength of the team?
Cameron: There is scope within the guide to recognise outstanding practitioners, but our analysis is squarely focused on the bigger picture; the performance of the team as a whole and the ways that key individuals contribute to the firm’s wider success. Internally, we think a lot about bench strength as a key factor in our ranking decisions. We want to see a team that is well-balanced with demonstrable, active talent at all levels.
Amy: On the individual front, the best way to get yourself noticed is to a) make sure a bio is included in the team information section of the submission; b) make sure you are featured in the matters highlights; and c) include referees that will respond so we receive testimonials on your work.
On referees: “People often think putting the CEO forward is the best approach, when in reality these people are often too busy to respond. Focus on those who have the time, and who you’ve worked more directly with.”
3. What are some common mistakes you see in submissions that law firms should avoid?
Amy: I think the biggest mistake firms make in their submission is not actually giving us the information the submission template is requesting. We have read countless submissions padded out with irrelevant matter highlights, non-active clients, marketing spiel and so on when in reality a direct and clear approach is much better.
Cameron: While not specifically a content issue, please do get everything in on time. The process is complex and time-sensitive, and we’ll be in a much better position to review everything properly if we have it by the deadline.
Client & referee feedback
4. What role does client feedback play in the ranking process, and how can firms improve the quality of the feedback they receive?
Amy: Yes, client feedback plays an important role in our assessment, particularly of individuals, but it is not the deciding factor in our decisions. Firms won’t be penalised for a low volume of feedback or no feedback at all as we recognise that clients are often extremely busy.
Cameron: All that said, we allow an unlimited number of client referees precisely for that reason. We really want to hear from them, and we would advise priming as much as possible that we will be getting in touch.
5. How should firms go about selecting and managing their referees to ensure strong responses?
Cameron: The most important element is including people who will actually respond and who you have worked with in the period being assessed. We get quite a few responses from referees saying ‘I haven’t worked with this person in years’ so make sure it is a timely list.
Amy: I’d also suggest considering how busy your clients are. People often think putting the CEO forward is the best approach, when in reality these people are often too busy to respond. Focus on those who have the time, and who you’ve worked more directly with.
Data & supporting evidence
6. What type of evidence or metrics strengthen a submission beyond just case summaries?
Amy: As we said before, a strong submission is one that fully addresses all of the question we’re asking. There are opportunities to provide details beyond the summary of the case – deal value, cross-border elements, opposing counsel etc. All of the elements of the template are there for a reason and providing us with that information adds significant value to the material we’re assessing.
7. How important is it to have publishable matters? Will it affect your ranking if all your matters are confidential?
Cameron: We assess publishable and non-publishable work with the same weighting. We appreciate that, in some practice areas, publishable work is effectively impossible to provide. We create the distinction purely so that we know what we can and cannot reference in our editorial content. A firm will not be penalised for a submission containing numerous, or even exclusively, confidential work highlights.
8. How detailed should the case studies be – do you prefer a broad overview or more in-depth analysis? What type of information do you like and loathe to see?
Amy: In terms of what we like to see, a broad overview is good with additional context around why you have included the matter.
Cameron: We don’t love submissions which attempt to pull the wool over our eyes. It’s important to remember that is ultimately a comparative exercise. We review a vast amount of information, and crucially, we can see what your competitors have been doing this year. Be as direct and honest as possible.
