Legal directory submissions are one of those things that look straightforward on paper and turn into a six-week ordeal in practice. Partners drag their feet. Referees go silent. Deadlines land right when everyone’s buried in client work. And after all that effort, the rankings come out and nothing changes.
The frustration is real, but most of it stems from a handful of fixable problems: poor planning, weak referee strategies, surface-level matter descriptions, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what directories actually evaluate. This guide breaks down each stage of the submission process for Chambers and Partners, The Legal 500, and IFLR1000, with specific, actionable advice drawn from what actually moves the needle with researchers.
Why Legal Directory Rankings Still Matter
Some lawyers dismiss directories as a vanity exercise. They’re wrong, but the skepticism isn’t baseless. Rankings only matter if the right people use them, and they do. In-house counsel routinely use directories like Chambers to build shortlists when hiring outside counsel in unfamiliar practice areas or jurisdictions. As Infinite Global notes, general counsel typically describe directories as tools for identifying candidates who then get vetted through standard processes like RFPs or interviews.
Rankings also function as credibility signals for lateral recruitment, client retention, and competitive positioning. Kidd Aitken points out that they’re often the first port of call for prospective clients and serve as recruitment guides for law students and trainee solicitors. A firm that’s consistently ranked sends a message that independent researchers have verified the quality of its work.
The key benefits break down into three categories:
- Client acquisition: Rankings serve as third-party endorsements that potential clients rely on during their decision-making process, according to the International Bar Association.
- Client retention: Existing clients take notice when their law firm is highly ranked. It validates their own choice of counsel.
- Talent and brand: Strong rankings elevate the firm’s reputation across all levels of seniority and signal depth of expertise beyond a single rainmaker.
In the United States, Chambers tends to carry more weight than Legal 500 or IFLR1000. Infinite Global recommends that if a firm can only focus on one directory, it should be Chambers. That said, Legal 500 and IFLR1000 have substantial influence in other jurisdictions, particularly in EMEA and Asia-Pacific markets, so the right choice depends entirely on where your clients and prospects are looking.
How the Major Directories Differ
A mistake firms make repeatedly is treating all directory submissions as interchangeable. They’re not. Each directory has its own research methodology, weighting system, and editorial preferences. Kidd Aitken emphasises that understanding what impacts ranking decisions for different directories is crucial but can be difficult for business development teams to determine.
The most important distinction: referee feedback contributes up to 60% of a ranking decision for Chambers, according to Kidd Aitken’s analysis. That single fact should reshape how you allocate your time. If you’re spending 80% of your effort polishing the written submission and 20% on referee strategy, you’ve got it backwards for Chambers.
Legal 500, by contrast, places greater weight on the written submission itself. ELE Rocks notes that adapting your Chambers work for Legal 500 shouldn’t be a copy-paste exercise, because each directory approaches the evaluation differently. A submission optimised for Chambers may underperform at Legal 500 if it relies too heavily on referee strength at the expense of compelling written content.
Chambers also uses a cumulative research methodology. Kidd Aitken warns that it can take two to three research cycles to gain or improve a ranking. This is critical for firms expecting instant results. Your first submission is laying groundwork, not winning a prize.
Building a Submission Timeline
The single most common failure mode is starting too late. Infinite Global recommends beginning work on Chambers submissions six weeks before the deadline. Start too early and lawyers push it off. Start too late and you’re scrambling.
Here’s a realistic six-week breakdown based on Infinite Global’s approach:
- Week 1: Analyse past rankings, select lawyers for inclusion, and define your strategic positioning for each practice area.
- Weeks 2 to 4: Notify selected lawyers and give them three weeks to gather matter details, identify potential referees, and secure referee cooperation. Simultaneously draft or update accolades, feedback on past rankings, attorney bios, and practice descriptions.
- Week 5: Follow-up work. Track down missing details, locate press coverage of matters, fill gaps in the referee spreadsheet.
- Week 6: Copy editing, optimal arrangement of matters and referees, final sign-off from practice group leaders.
Submissions are not accepted year-round. Legal Directories Consultants notes that each directory has hard deadlines, and missing one typically means waiting another 12 months. Chambers publishes its full research schedule online, while Legal 500 deadlines vary by region, with UK Regions typically in February, London in April, EMEA in August, and US in November.
For firms submitting across multiple practice areas, the time commitment is substantial. The Global Legal Post reports that it often takes a firm more than 20 hours per practice area to produce a good submission, and some run to 25 pages or more.
Strategy Before Drafting
Before anyone opens a submission template, the firm needs to answer a set of strategic questions. Who are we putting forward? Which practice areas have the strongest case? Where are we trying to enter rankings versus defend existing ones?
Selecting Lawyers for Inclusion
This is where many firms go wrong by defaulting to seniority rather than evidence. The Global Legal Post advises being selective about who you put forward and warns against diluting individual cases by including too many lawyers. For each submission, identify which lawyers have the strongest evidence for ranking. Each of those should:
- Appear in at least three or four work highlights
- Be well known to at least three or four of the referees you put forward
- Be named in the ranked/unranked lawyer profile section
- Be mentioned in the department overview
Don’t skip associates and junior partners. Kidd Aitken makes a strong case that having well-ranked lawyers across all levels of seniority elevates the firm’s reputation as a whole and often leads to improved practice area group rankings. It demonstrates expertise running through the entire firm, not sitting solely with senior and managing partners.
Given Chambers’ cumulative methodology, getting junior lawyers into the process early is an investment that compounds over multiple research cycles.
Competitive Analysis
The IBA recommends analysing competitor rankings, the matters they highlight, and the clients they showcase. This isn’t about copying their approach. It’s about identifying gaps and opportunities to differentiate your firm. If every competitor is leading with headline M&A deals, perhaps your edge is in the complexity of mid-market transactions or in a sector specialism others overlook.
The Global Legal Post also recommends giving feedback, both positive and negative, about other firms in your jurisdiction, including benchmarking them against your practice. This helps researchers calibrate where your firm sits in the market.
Writing Work Highlights That Actually Land
Work highlights are where most submissions either shine or fall flat. The problem is twofold: some firms submit only surface-level descriptions, while others drown researchers in technical jargon.
Kidd Aitken notes that many clients initially provide only surface-level descriptions for their work highlights. The fix: detail novel legal issues, transaction structures, and any information about matters being landmark within the market context. Not every matter can be novel or landmark, but there are many ways to emphasise significance, whether through complexity of the legal work, market context, matter value, or the importance of the outcome for the client.
At the other extreme, filling a work highlight with technical terms might seem impressive, but researchers and editors, while highly skilled, often don’t have formal legal training. Kidd Aitken advises using simple terms and language that make the matter easy to understand. The Global Legal Post echoes this, recommending “Business English” and noting that 300 words per highlight would be pretty long.
Practical rules for strong work highlights:
- Include exactly the number requested (usually 20) where possible
- Prioritise their order, putting the strongest matters first
- Include or indicate the value of a matter wherever possible
- Make sure all highlights are relevant to the specific practice area being researched
- Update work highlights every year; don’t just copy and paste from last year’s submission
- Write a unique description for each matter
Consider the scale researchers are dealing with. The Global Legal Post estimates that a jurisdiction with 20 practice areas will yield roughly 30 submissions per practice area, with each running around 10,000 words. That’s approximately six million words and 15,000 pages a researcher needs to review. Brevity isn’t just polite; it’s strategic.
The Referee Strategy That Most Firms Get Wrong
Given that referee feedback can account for up to 60% of a Chambers ranking decision, getting this right is arguably more important than the submission document itself. Yet ELE Rocks describes referees as “often an afterthought” that get ignored after the spreadsheet is compiled.
The Global Legal Post offers several specific warnings about referee selection. First, if Chambers has contacted a referee on any firm’s behalf, it won’t contact the same person again within three months. Use each referee for one practice area only. Second, the number that matters isn’t how many referees you submit; it’s how many actually respond. Most don’t.
Referee selection criteria worth following:
- Relevant: Someone with recent insight into your work in the practice area, whether as a client, co-counsel, or opposing counsel
- Likely to respond: Many referees simply don’t reply to researcher outreach
- Positive about your work: This sounds obvious, but it gets overlooked under time pressure
One counterintuitive tip from The Global Legal Post: be wary of putting forward very senior people like CEOs and general counsel. Juniors are much more likely to respond to researchers, and their feedback carries the same weight. Senior contacts are also more likely to have been submitted by other firms, which can trigger the three-month contact restriction at Chambers.
What you must never do: write the reference yourself. Directories expect firms to contact referees, let them know a researcher will be in touch, and remind them about the relevant work. But The Global Legal Post notes that directories take a very negative view if the firm actually writes the reference. That line between briefing and ghostwriting is one you don’t want to cross.
Practice Overviews and Firm Positioning
Kidd Aitken describes the practice overview as your “statement” that should introduce your lawyers (ranked and unranked), demonstrate standout attributes, and differentiate you from competitors. The pitches you make here need to be reflected in your work highlights and referees. If you argue a lawyer should be ranked more highly, include them on work highlights and ensure a few referees will provide feedback specifically about them.
Chambers now requests approximately 500 words for the practice overview, and The Global Legal Post recommends that should be enough in most instances. The two biggest mistakes here are including boilerplate firm descriptions that could apply to any competitor, and padding with information researchers won’t weigh heavily, such as other directory rankings, awards, seminar appearances, and publications.
The IBA suggests aligning submissions with firm-wide branding. If your firm emphasises a tech-forward approach, guide lawyers in highlighting relevant technological aspects of their work. If sustainability is a differentiator, quantify its impact. Directories are increasingly looking beyond individual practice areas at a firm’s overall culture and approach, including pro bono work and ESG commitments.
Year-Round Data Collection
The firms that produce the best submissions aren’t the ones with the biggest BD teams. They’re the ones that collect information continuously instead of scrambling at deadline time.
The IBA recommends implementing a system for year-round data collection. It doesn’t need to be complex or expensive. A simple internal platform where lawyers log significant matters, client wins, and achievements as they happen will dramatically reduce the stress and quality gap when submission time arrives.
This approach also solves one of the most persistent problems in the process: partner engagement. Kidd Aitken notes that a tailored strategy where everyone understands what information is needed and when improves partner engagement and helps gather relevant information ahead of deadlines.
The IBA also suggests drawing on data from departments beyond legal practice: finance can provide revenue growth and client retention rates, HR can contribute diversity initiatives and key hires, and IT can highlight technological advancements that improve client service. These data points add texture that purely legal submissions often lack.
Cross-Department Collaboration
Directory submissions tend to get siloed within BD or marketing teams. That’s a missed opportunity. The IBA argues for fostering a firm-wide mindset where submissions are a shared priority, not just a task for one department.
One practical suggestion from the IBA: rather than bringing BD in as an afterthought, involve them from the outset of significant matters. This could include attending key client meetings (with client approval) or being copied on major correspondence. Real-time involvement allows BD to craft more compelling narratives because they actually understand the work, not just the summary emailed to them three days before the deadline.
The IBA also recommends creating a “submissions playbook,” a repository of best practices, successful examples, and key insights from researchers. This ensures consistency across the firm and serves as a training tool for junior lawyers and new BD team members joining mid-cycle.
After You Submit: Interviews and Follow-Up
Submission is not the finish line. Legal Directories Consultants notes that post-submission, firms may be invited to research interviews. Not every firm gets one, and not being interviewed doesn’t necessarily mean you won’t be ranked. But when you do get the call, preparation matters. ELE Rocks offers interview preparation and training as part of their service, reflecting how much these conversations can influence outcomes.
Post-submission is also when referee management becomes active. The directory will notify you of planned referee contact dates. Give your referees a heads-up when this happens, and send one or two reminders during the research period. ELE Rocks recommends monitoring response rates and chasing non-responsive referees, because the gap between referees submitted and referees who actually respond is where many firms lose ground.
Common Questions About Legal Directory Submissions
How long does it take to compile a legal directory submission?
Infinite Global recommends starting six weeks before the deadline. The Global Legal Post estimates more than 20 hours per practice area for a good submission. A firm submitting across five practice areas is looking at 100+ hours of work, which is why starting early and delegating responsibility to specific individuals is critical.
Should I use technical legal language in my submission?
No. Kidd Aitken explicitly advises against it, noting that even though researchers and editors are highly skilled in their jurisdictions, many do not have formal legal training. Plain English makes your submission easier to analyse, which matters when researchers are reviewing millions of words across hundreds of submissions.
Can the same referee be used for multiple practice areas in Chambers?
The Global Legal Post recommends against it. If Chambers has asked a referee for feedback on any firm’s behalf, it won’t contact that person again within three months. Using each referee for one practice area only maximises the chances of them being contacted and responding.
By entering the email address you agree to our Privacy Policy.
What are legal directory submissions?
ELE Rocks defines them as detailed documents showcasing a firm’s, chambers’, or individual lawyer’s expertise, key achievements, and client feedback, submitted to independent ranking organisations like Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners. They were originally published as books but now exist primarily online.
Is it worth submitting junior partners and associates?
Yes, particularly for Chambers. Kidd Aitken argues that because Chambers uses a cumulative research methodology, it’s important to begin the process for junior lawyers sooner rather than later. Waiting until they’re senior enough to have an extensive track record means losing years of cumulative research history that could have been building toward a ranking.