The following post is an extended version of Helen Foord\’s article for the September/October version of PM Forum Magazine.
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a [directories researcher] in possession of a [submission document], must be in want of [reasons to rank random lawyers]. However little known the feelings or views of such a [directories researcher] may be on [their] first entering [the research period], this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding [law firms] that [ranking] is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their [lawyers].*
In short, it doesn’t matter whether your submissions documents are backed in evidence. Researchers will understand why you should be an absolute shoe-in for ranking. Right?
Understanding the link between legal directories and AI search
It used to be simple. You filled in your submission, popped it in, crossed your fingers and waited. If you were really pushing the boat out, you might have made some tweaks to your lawyer bios or sent out a couple of press releases on hot topics.
That approach is no longer enough. AI-powered search is here. Google AI Mode is already live in the UK. Perplexity, ChatGPT and Claude are being used for research at every level of business. And while legal directory researchers might not yet be using these tools to their full extent, let’s be honest: it’s coming. Why wouldn’t a time-poor, academically trained researcher lean on a PhD-level AI engine to test the credibility of a submission, explore a niche claim, or spot the firms that are winning in a certain sector? And what does this mean law firms now need to do?
We’re not saying submission documents need to be optimised for AI search
Desk research has always been a part of how rankings are researched and these are influenced by what can be found online. If a submission claims a lawyer is a market leader in crypto disputes, or that a team is dominating the AI sector, or that your firm is a go-to for cross-border regulatory work, the researcher is going to check.
And they’re going to use the tools that help them check fast: search engines, online media, LinkedIn, legal press and increasingly AI-powered platforms that summarise multiple sources in a flash.
If there’s no supporting evidence online, it raises questions. If the only place those claims exist is in the submission itself, it may not carry the weight you hoped.
The two-pronged approach
1. Strong, credible submissions
The best submissions are clear, specific, and well-evidenced. They highlight standout matters, showcase client impact, and connect the dots between the work and the rankings. They use carefully chosen language that makes it easy for a researcher to see what’s significant, what’s new, and what deserves ranking.
2. Content that supports and reinforces your claims
This is where most firms fall down. You say you’re known for X. You highlight a rising star in Y. But if the AI search doesn’t know that, the researcher may never be convinced.
So ask yourself: if someone typed your firm name and a claimed area of expertise into Perplexity or Google AI Mode, what would show up?
If the answer is \”not much\”, it’s time to act.
This doesn’t mean churning out random blog posts or stuffing your site with buzzwords. It means:
- Making sure your homepage is clear about the strengths you’re promoting in submissions
- Creating detailed team bios that reflect the claims in your submission and are connected to authored content
- Publishing FAQs that show you know the sector in detail
- Sharing press coverage and case studies that reinforce your expertise
- Optimising content with the proper schema mark-up and naming language researchers (and clients) will use to search
- And while you’re at it, image alt text and file names matter in helping AI understand what you’re highlighting
Why this matters more now
Let’s come back to AI search. These tools don’t just pull up web pages. They summarise, compare, highlight connections, and spot patterns. They literally read the content you’re putting out there and form a joined-up picture of your reputation in seconds. And they’ll report this to the researcher… with links to all the evidence they’re drawing on.
That means:
- If a lawyer is named in a submission as a leading voice in technology law, but their name doesn’t appear online in connection with that work, it may undermine their case.
- If your firm claims a strategic focus on life sciences, but your homepage barely mentions it, you’re invisible to the tools doing the research.
This isn’t speculation. It’s already happening. And as tools like ChatGPT-5 become more accurate, connected and fast, it will only accelerate.
So, what should you do?
First, don’t panic. This is not about turning every lawyer into a content machine or completely overhauling your website overnight. What we’re suggesting is that you consider the ways your digital presence supports (or doesn’t) the arguments you’re putting forward in submissions.
Second, be practical. Start with a basic audit:
- Are your lawyer bios up to date?
- Do they reflect the sectors and strengths named in your submissions?
- Is your homepage working hard enough to highlight your expertise?
- Are there simple pieces of content (FAQs, matter summaries, articles) you could publish that would support this year’s submissions?
- Is your PR strategy aligned with your directories strategy?
- Are you using the language a researcher is likely to search for?
- Have you linked lawyers to news stories, awards, and authored commentary?
- Have you tidied up the back end to ensure that schema markups are added and images properly optimised – so your content can be found?
Finally, treat submissions as an integral part of your content planning. Think of them not just as an annual activity but as another marketing channel. Tie together your messaging, campaign themes and published content across submissions, web, social, PR and thought leadership, to create a joined-up, searchable presence that reinforces your expertise.
Miss out these steps and – we predict – miss out on rankings.
