Legal Directory Submissions Best Practices
How to put together an effective legal directory submission is a question that many firms struggle to answer. Having worked as part of a law firm marketing team and at the directories, here’s what I’ve learnt. I know that the process is often time consuming – particularly when there’s always business development work to do. So, although the intentions are there, it’s common that the path of least resistance is taken and content from last year is recycled, irrespective of its effectiveness.
This guide will outline the processes and tactics for creating the best submissions.
I. Process
Process is the building block of a successful submission. It might take a bit of time and effort to get off the ground initially, but once you have it down, it will take the heat out of directories season. The first lesson is “start early”.
Tip 1
Conduct an audit of the practice areas you’re submitting to or intend to submit to and make sure they align with the work your firm has put forward in previous years. If needed, cross-check this with the practice area descriptions the directories put out (see this example from Legal 500 EMEA) and make sure you’re hitting the brief.
Why?
Many firms will submit for one practice area, when the work they do more closely aligns with another. Another common mistake is that firms will leave out work highlights that might bolster their chances of promotion or inclusion, because they don’t realise it’s relevant.
Tip 2
Borrowing from project management, create a spreadsheet with the practice areas you submit to and their deadlines.
The next columns should be a progress checklist enabling you to keep track of where you are.
Why?
Submissions have many moving parts and when everyone’s busy, it’s possible to miss things, and even overlook practice areas that you have submitted to in the past. This document will make sure you stay on track and once created, it can be updated for future cycles.
Tip 3
Get into the habit of meeting with the key stakeholders from each practice area a couple of months before the deadline to discuss work highlights and individuals from the team they’d like to showcase. Come armed with the practice area descriptions.
Why?
There is always a mad rush for departments to collate content as the deadline approaches, which sometimes means that you end up with too few matters, matters that aren’t relevant or are too homogenous, or team members who should be mentioned are left out.
To prevent this, you should set expectations with the stakeholders on what you’re looking for, giving them enough time to provide you with the relevant information.
II. Individual Rankings
You’ll often hear that “strength in depth” is a criterion for a ranking. What does that mean? That individuals on the team are just as important as the department as a whole.
Tip 1
Be selective!
Why?
Depending on the firm, a lot of politics goes into the individuals put forward in a submission. Conversely, you might be tempted to put the whole team in, including trainees, to demonstrate real “strength in depth”. This is not the right approach.
Make sure you select lawyers who have participated in a good number of work highlights in the submission or who are making a name for themselves in the industry. Associates and more junior lawyers are less likely to receive a ranking and dilute the overall message of the submission, so look to only include Senior Associates and above.
One golden rule that’s sometimes broken is to include a bio for anyone newly hired (Senior Associate or above). You want to show that your practice is expanding and that they brought something to the team.
Tip 2
Make a case for a lawyers’ ranking (in Chambers’ bands) or listing (in Legal 500’s categories for individuals). This should be in their bios, but you can also reference it in the practice overview and feedback sections, particularly if you can point to particular work highlights to support your argument.
Why?
A submission is all about showcasing the best of the firm and they work on evidence. You should be spelling things out for the researcher, making sure they understand the qualities your lawyers possess and where they fit into the market.
Tip 3
Make sure that work highlights are led by a mixture of partners and that it is clear who actually led on the matter (as opposed to citing all the practice heads)
Why?
This goes back to “strength in depth”, but also “variety of work”. One of the metrics of a deep practice is that multiple lawyers are bringing in and leading on work. If it appears that work is being led by one partner, it gives the impression of a narrow practice. Different lawyers also contribute different specialisms, so in any place, it’s a good idea to vary the lawyers you’re including.
This also applies to more junior lawyers. Make sure the lawyer’s whom you have listed in the bios are well represented in the work highlights.
III. Submissions
Submissions are why we’re here and are all about presenting your firm, its work and individuals in a way that’s understood by the researchers.
Tip 1
Be concise! avoid marketing speak, and signpost.
Why?
Researchers will read tens, if not hundreds, of submissions throughout the research cycle. This means that submissions will often be scanned for relevant information. It’s therefore important that everything is easy to locate.
Some firms will resort to narrative descriptions. Narrative takes time to comprehend, and marketing speak is meaningless. You want to be technical and precise.
Make sure you signpost everything, using headings and subheadings. When the researcher scans the page, make it easy for them to find the content they’re looking for. Use bold where you want to highlight something.
Tip 2
Make sure everything you include is relevant.
Why?
It’s tempting to include every award, every client, every bit of educational experience your team has achieved – and likewise, it’s tempting to come up with standardised text that’s used across submissions for every practice area (a common error with the “innovation” section in the form).
Don’t do this.
Researchers are focused on what the firm is doing in the practice area under review. This means that everything should contribute to their understanding of this. This is related to the previous tip – information that isn’t relevant will be ignored due to time constraints and will dilute the overall message of the submission.
Tip 3
Fill out every section, but only if you have the content to back it up.
Why?
When you do have relevant information, include it. It will only help bolster the quality of the submission and reduce the excuses for non-promotion, demotion or non-inclusion.
This is particularly important for work highlights. Make sure you fill out all the fields, including the firms you worked opposite or with on a matter, as this gives a chance for the researcher to benchmark your firm against others.
Make sure you make use of the feedback sections – this is where you can really help the researcher understand the market and where you fit into it if you can build a strong case.
IV. Work Highlights
Work highlights are the meat of the submission and the evidence you need for the case you build in the other sections.
Tip 1
Make sure you provide enough, but don’t provide too many.
Why?
Another mistake firms make is to provide too few or too many matters. You should be able to provide around 20 matters for each practice area you submit for and these matters should be from the last 12-18 months.
Simply, when there are too few matters there isn’t enough evidence to justify why a firm should be included or promoted. Indeed, it might result in a demotion.
When you provide too many work highlights, however, you drown out the message you’re trying to put across. Researchers will not read all of them so your work in collating them and writing them up will be for nothing.
Tip 2
Use the structure: scope, what the firm did, why was the matter interesting/challenging/ important?
Why?
If you format your matter descriptions like that, you provide all the information a researcher needs to know in a way that signposts the relevant information. This can get a bit tricky with complex disputes, where there is a bit more leeway on the amount of narrative you can provide, but most descriptions should follow that rule.
Tip 3
It’s partly about matter value, but also focus on variety and complexity.
Why?
Everyone likes a big matter value, and it won’t hurt your chances if you can provide high-value work for big clients. However, you also want to demonstrate your team’s ability to take on a wide variety of work, hitting on different bits of the practice definitions, and that the work is challenging or complex, requiring real experts in their field (your lawyers).
Sometimes high value transactions are very simple. Skilful lawyers can add value in the most complex of situations.
V. Research Interviews
If you get asked to participate in a research interview, it’s a good chance to emphasise out the most important parts of your submission and frame the firm favourably in comparison to its competitors. Legal 500 is more flexible with the interviews it can offer and it’s advisable to reach out to the relevant researcher when the research period has begun. Chambers will generally reach out to you.
Tip 1
Prepare for the interview with a fact sheet, listing key market trends, highlighting important parts of the submission and with preprepared thoughts on the existing rankings that tow the line.
Why?
The interviews are a brilliant chance for your lawyers to come across as oracles of the market. Well, that’s a bit of an exaggeration. But you want them to be seen ass knowledgeable.
To make this easy for them, as they take time out of their busy schedules to participate, and to ensure that they have something to say, it’s advisable to brief them beforehand on key issues that might come up.
Tip 2
Be friendly and respectful.
Why?
Surely, this goes without saying? Apparently not. Researchers talk to each other. Badly behaved interviewees are the talk of the office for years, and its surprisingly common – from shouting at the researcher for last year’s ranking decisions, to belittling their jobs, to inappropriate comments. It all puts the firm in a bad light and lowers the chances of a positive outcome for the firm.
Tip 3
Follow the researcher’s lead
Why?
It might be tempting for your lawyers to reel off everything they know (or on their fact sheet) before the researcher has had a chance to ask the next question. This is the wrong approach. Interviews are structured for the researcher to take notes, so keep at their pace or they’ll have missed the important points you want to get across.
Thanks for reading!
Need help with any of this? Organise a consultation today.