*/
Daniel Kidd lifts the lid on the often-misunderstood legal directory submissions process and explores ways in which chambers and barristers can optimise their ranking strategies
Whatever one may think of them, legal directory rankings are an important reference point for law firms and frequently the first port of call when seeking barristers on their client’s behalf or for in-house counsel. Securing a rank in a Bar guide – whether as a chambers or barrister – is a profound achievement. It is a recognition of expertise and authority in a highly competitive field.
Nevertheless, legal directory submissions can be time-consuming and complex. Rankings are based on market research, case work and feedback from both clients and peers. Collating this requires intense organisation and collaboration, from both barristers and directory editors.
It is beneficial to understand how legal directories rank barristers:
It is prudent, therefore, to define medium and long-term strategies for your own submissions process. This increases the likelihood of ranking highly and maintaining rankings in a competitive landscape. Short-term strategies can be implemented in that very application year in order to preserve precious time and human resources. Mid- and long-term strategies can cover 2-5 and 5+ years respectively; concentrating on where a chambers wants to see their future ranking and how they are going to achieve it.
When selecting barristers to rank, and how many should be entered, it is advisable to consider the submissions from the perspective of the greater good of the set of chambers. Sometimes less is more in this regard and be sure to keep diversity and inclusion initiatives in mind.
When submitting as a chambers, opt for barristers who mirror your mid- to long-term strategies to take advantage of the cumulative rankings approach. Take into account each barrister’s market profile and reputation among peers as these will heavily influence their final ranking. For large teams already featured within a Bar guide, pitch two or three unranked barristers to complement them. Select those who are likely to attract recognition from clients and peers.
Choosing which location applies seems easy but can affect your final ranking too. Regional sections of a Bar guide generally have fewer entries than London sectors and can therefore be less competitive. A barrister who splits their time and case load between London and the Midlands, for example, could consider applying for the Midlands section for greater chances of ranking.
Unranked barristers should avoid the temptation to apply for multiple practice areas. It is worth remembering that directories reward specialism, so stick to applying for only one. Making multiple practice area submissions runs the risk of a barrister being thought of as a ‘jack of all trades’ – a label to avoid.
If a specific niche is not covered, why not get in touch with the directories to ask if they would consider covering it. Chambers & Partners, in particular, is always keen to investigate creating new sections to better cover the Bar.
TIP: Ask for feedback: You are able to ask for free feedback on a limited number of ranking decisions, depending on the directory. While the information can be limited, it can help to inform your strategy for future research cycles.
This is your chance to demonstrate your legal talent, case portfolio and market insight. Easier said than done? Here are a few tips to help barristers optimise their submission copy.
Aim to capture the attention of the researcher. Researchers review hundreds of submissions per cycle, so be concise. Similarly, a submission may not reach the same researcher each cycle. Be sure to include all important and relevant details for any cases or work submitted.
The opening narrative pitch serves as an introduction to the nominated chambers or barrister. It can be helpful to assess all statements against a sceptical ‘so what?’ evaluation. This keeps the pitch short and ensures that you only include statements that add value.
Avoid excessive technical and legal jargon. It may sound counter-intuitive but using a more human tone creates an easily digestible writing style and pitch.
The ‘work highlights’ section is an opportunity to support the assertions made in the narrative pitch. Include the full number of clients and cases allowed per submission from both current and ongoing cases; this demonstrates a well-rounded case experience. As before, affirm every statement by assessing against the ‘so what?’ test.
Feedback is highly relevant to the submissions process and some directories will place a stronger emphasis on client and peer feedback than others. Compiling referees should therefore form part of chambers’ initial strategy. Keep a list of clients and peers for different practice areas who can be relied upon to provide stellar feedback and uphold claims made in the submission. Ask them in advance if they are willing to provide such feedback.
Identify five clients per barrister from the above list. Barristers whose work is predominantly direct access-related should think carefully about their referees. If possible, avoid putting forward individuals who have never previously instructed counsel; their feedback could be viewed as less valuable by the directory editor, due to their lack of frame of reference.
Barristers need to have worked with their referees in the past 12 months. They must relate to the applied practice area, but do not have to relate to cases from the work highlights section. Avoid listing the same clients as referees in multiple directories; this can overburden them to provide feedback, which can be detrimental.
Clients will need to be reminded to check their inbox for the feedback requests and prompted to respond. Some directories will provide response rates if requested, which can be useful when monitoring which clients have delivered feedback.
TIP: The 3-month policy: Any client referee who has been contacted by Chambers & Partners on behalf of any chambers in any jurisdiction over the previous three months cannot be contacted again. Avoid using the same individual on multiple referee lists – put forward junior referees from the same client company, instead of senior colleagues, as this may result in similar feedback.
When approaching peers for feedback, barristers should keep an eye on the directories to which they are submitting. If there are ranked barristers with whom you have worked previously, or frequently come across in chambers, consider putting them forward. Highlight on the submission that you are instructed in the same work as the individuals the directory currently ranks for this section.
Armed with this insight into the submissions process, how ranking decisions are made, and how you can approach submissions to attain a high ranking, barristers can feel more confident and better equipped to manage their submissions.
Kidd Aitken is currently preparing a best practice guide containing more tips, allowing chambers to approach legal directory submissions more effectively.
Daniel Kidd is a former Chambers & Partners editor and now co-founder of Kidd Aitken Legal Marketing, a 30-strong international team comprising former editors and researchers from Chambers & Partners, Legal 500 and other major legal directories: www.kiddaitken.com
Whatever one may think of them, legal directory rankings are an important reference point for law firms and frequently the first port of call when seeking barristers on their client’s behalf or for in-house counsel. Securing a rank in a Bar guide – whether as a chambers or barrister – is a profound achievement. It is a recognition of expertise and authority in a highly competitive field.
Nevertheless, legal directory submissions can be time-consuming and complex. Rankings are based on market research, case work and feedback from both clients and peers. Collating this requires intense organisation and collaboration, from both barristers and directory editors.
It is beneficial to understand how legal directories rank barristers:
It is prudent, therefore, to define medium and long-term strategies for your own submissions process. This increases the likelihood of ranking highly and maintaining rankings in a competitive landscape. Short-term strategies can be implemented in that very application year in order to preserve precious time and human resources. Mid- and long-term strategies can cover 2-5 and 5+ years respectively; concentrating on where a chambers wants to see their future ranking and how they are going to achieve it.
When selecting barristers to rank, and how many should be entered, it is advisable to consider the submissions from the perspective of the greater good of the set of chambers. Sometimes less is more in this regard and be sure to keep diversity and inclusion initiatives in mind.
When submitting as a chambers, opt for barristers who mirror your mid- to long-term strategies to take advantage of the cumulative rankings approach. Take into account each barrister’s market profile and reputation among peers as these will heavily influence their final ranking. For large teams already featured within a Bar guide, pitch two or three unranked barristers to complement them. Select those who are likely to attract recognition from clients and peers.
Choosing which location applies seems easy but can affect your final ranking too. Regional sections of a Bar guide generally have fewer entries than London sectors and can therefore be less competitive. A barrister who splits their time and case load between London and the Midlands, for example, could consider applying for the Midlands section for greater chances of ranking.
Unranked barristers should avoid the temptation to apply for multiple practice areas. It is worth remembering that directories reward specialism, so stick to applying for only one. Making multiple practice area submissions runs the risk of a barrister being thought of as a ‘jack of all trades’ – a label to avoid.
If a specific niche is not covered, why not get in touch with the directories to ask if they would consider covering it. Chambers & Partners, in particular, is always keen to investigate creating new sections to better cover the Bar.
TIP: Ask for feedback: You are able to ask for free feedback on a limited number of ranking decisions, depending on the directory. While the information can be limited, it can help to inform your strategy for future research cycles.
This is your chance to demonstrate your legal talent, case portfolio and market insight. Easier said than done? Here are a few tips to help barristers optimise their submission copy.
Aim to capture the attention of the researcher. Researchers review hundreds of submissions per cycle, so be concise. Similarly, a submission may not reach the same researcher each cycle. Be sure to include all important and relevant details for any cases or work submitted.
The opening narrative pitch serves as an introduction to the nominated chambers or barrister. It can be helpful to assess all statements against a sceptical ‘so what?’ evaluation. This keeps the pitch short and ensures that you only include statements that add value.
Avoid excessive technical and legal jargon. It may sound counter-intuitive but using a more human tone creates an easily digestible writing style and pitch.
The ‘work highlights’ section is an opportunity to support the assertions made in the narrative pitch. Include the full number of clients and cases allowed per submission from both current and ongoing cases; this demonstrates a well-rounded case experience. As before, affirm every statement by assessing against the ‘so what?’ test.
Feedback is highly relevant to the submissions process and some directories will place a stronger emphasis on client and peer feedback than others. Compiling referees should therefore form part of chambers’ initial strategy. Keep a list of clients and peers for different practice areas who can be relied upon to provide stellar feedback and uphold claims made in the submission. Ask them in advance if they are willing to provide such feedback.
Identify five clients per barrister from the above list. Barristers whose work is predominantly direct access-related should think carefully about their referees. If possible, avoid putting forward individuals who have never previously instructed counsel; their feedback could be viewed as less valuable by the directory editor, due to their lack of frame of reference.
Barristers need to have worked with their referees in the past 12 months. They must relate to the applied practice area, but do not have to relate to cases from the work highlights section. Avoid listing the same clients as referees in multiple directories; this can overburden them to provide feedback, which can be detrimental.
Clients will need to be reminded to check their inbox for the feedback requests and prompted to respond. Some directories will provide response rates if requested, which can be useful when monitoring which clients have delivered feedback.
TIP: The 3-month policy: Any client referee who has been contacted by Chambers & Partners on behalf of any chambers in any jurisdiction over the previous three months cannot be contacted again. Avoid using the same individual on multiple referee lists – put forward junior referees from the same client company, instead of senior colleagues, as this may result in similar feedback.
When approaching peers for feedback, barristers should keep an eye on the directories to which they are submitting. If there are ranked barristers with whom you have worked previously, or frequently come across in chambers, consider putting them forward. Highlight on the submission that you are instructed in the same work as the individuals the directory currently ranks for this section.
Armed with this insight into the submissions process, how ranking decisions are made, and how you can approach submissions to attain a high ranking, barristers can feel more confident and better equipped to manage their submissions.
Kidd Aitken is currently preparing a best practice guide containing more tips, allowing chambers to approach legal directory submissions more effectively.
Daniel Kidd lifts the lid on the often-misunderstood legal directory submissions process and explores ways in which chambers and barristers can optimise their ranking strategies
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
On the 50th anniversary of the pub bombings, even now it is still unresolved. Chris Mullin, the journalist and former MP who led the campaign leading to the release of the Birmingham Six, looks back at events
Adele Akers’ reflections on health and wellbeing support at the very junior end of the Bar
Not one to say, ‘I told you so,’ Sam Thomas continues his cyber series with the key learnings from the major supply chain attack affecting 80 law firms and at least one set of chambers at the end of 2023
One year on and the Court of Appeal fails to quash convictions after receiving evidence of racism in the jury room, and there are still no revisions to the Equal Treatment Bench Book , says Keir Monteith KC
Increasing sophistication and frequency of attacks have led many chambers to ask ‘when’ not ‘if’ they will suffer a cyber incident. Simon Davis sets out the factors to consider when renewing your cyber cover
