You might think it’s a given that – as one of the UK’s leading legal directories consultancies – we’d consider them to be pretty fundamental in terms of building credibility, securing new clients, and standing out in a crowded market. The fact is, because the rankings are backed up with real-life industry support and cross-sector benchmarking, we believe that a strong showing in directories like Chambers and Legal 500 is far more than just a badge of marketing honour.
The challenge is that achieving, and more importantly, maintaining, a strong legal directory ranking isn’t automatic. Believing you’re worthy of ranking and putting in a reasonably good submission doesn’t mean things are a dead cert. If you want the results, you’ll need to prioritise the submission process and follow up on it. And that means more than filling in forms and crossing fingers.
In this article, we’ll explore the common reasons behind disappointing rankings and, crucially, the legal directory ranking tips to turn things around.
Why submissions matter (and you shouldn’t stop at just one)
Back in the olden days, when we all started out doing legal directory submissions, there were two main directories, Chambers & Partners and Legal 500. As time has gone on, both have continued to offer regional and jurisdictional guidance and Chambers has supported this with specialist guides including High Net Worth, FinTech, Litigation Support, Crisis & Risk Management, and NewLaw. Legal 500 has added Country Comparative Guides as well as their Green Guide.
But alongside these two directories is a growing number of additional guides such as IFLR and Lexology, as well as specialist and regional directories, including IAM Patent and Managing IP, Global Data Review, and more. The list is ever-growing.
For a time many firms started nailing their colours to a particular mast – saying that they only did Chambers, for example. But two things have really started to change this.
First, both of the main directories have invested heavily in data, with Chambers offering deep insight into data-backed metrics, feedback and referee management and Legal 500 really excelling at providing client care insight.
The second is that AI-driven search has doubled down on the benefit of being viewed as ‘credible’ in search terms. With tools like Google, Chat GPT and Perplexity all searching the directories straight away, after a request for information on a firm or legal topics, we’re seeing growth in firms really recognising the material ROI of featuring highly in these rankings.
As a result we’re seeing a noticeable increase in the number of firms and chambers not only entering a wider number of submissions and rankings but buying insight reports, access to data and paid-for profiles.
The common culprits behind disappointing rankings
If your rankings aren’t what you hoped for it can be tempting to throw the baby out with the bath water and decide to stop entering them. But, we’re afraid to say, there’s usually a reason why you’re not getting the results you think you deserve. And often, it’s fixable. Here are the most common pitfalls:
1. Lack of strategic approach
Straight out at number one, submitting without clear objectives, or simply recycling last year’s information, is a fast track to disappointment. It might sound like overkill for what you may view as a tedious administrative process but without a strategic plan, it’s easy to miss opportunities, misalign your messaging, or fail to showcase your firm’s real strengths. For more on why strategy is key, see our guide on why submissions need strategic planning.
2. Misunderstanding what researchers want
Contrary to popular demand, directory researchers aren’t trying to trip you up. But they are looking for specific things. They want clear evidence of expertise, strong client feedback, and proof that your practice stands out. Importantly, they want claims to be backed up with evidence. If you say you deserve higher ranking you need to provide clear information that supports it. And this needs to be presented in such a way as a busy researcher will be able to understand, right away, why things are important. Poorly pitched submissions or vague matter summaries just don’t cut through.
Need help getting your matter summaries right? Here’s our full guide to writing brilliant matter summaries.
3. Poor preparation and timing issues
Last-minute scrambles almost always result in weaker submissions. Rushed case summaries, missing client lists, outdated highlights, people put forward without supporting matters… It all makes life harder for the researchers, and harder for your ranking ambitions.
4. Misguided referee choices
Referees play a huge role in your success. Choosing referees who are too busy, too removed from your work, or not briefed properly can sink even the best submissions. Worse still, some referees simply won’t respond, which can seriously damage your prospects. Too many firms view the referee process as a quick scrabble to fill in the spreadsheet, but done well it is supported by strategy and is followed up to ensure the best results.
5. Submitting in the wrong places
One of the most common mistakes is not reading the category descriptions properly. Each directory clearly outlines what should, and shouldn’t, be covered in a category. Just because you want a matter to fit doesn’t mean it does. Particularly if it’s already been used in a different category.
Trying to shoehorn irrelevant work into the wrong section not only wastes time, it can actively undermine your credibility. Researchers will disregard matters that fall outside scope, meaning strong work gets ignored and opportunities are lost.
Fresh submissions each year are a chance to reassess properly, highlight the right matters in the right categories, and stay alert to newer or specialist areas where you genuinely excel.
6. Inconsistency and lack of follow-through
Directory submissions aren’t a one-off exercise. The best firms take the long-term view. Building strong rankings often takes three years or more of consistent, strategic effort. It’s not unusual for even excellent practices to go unranked at first. Researchers need to see repeated evidence of excellence, consistent client feedback, and a clear market presence before seriously considering both individuals and teams for ranking.
This is why a strategic, year-round approach is crucial. Successful firms don’t scramble once a year before the deadline; they work steadily across the calendar. Successful firms work hard, collating strong matters as they happen, engaging with referees early (ensuring they’re briefed, responsive, and understanding the importance of providing feedback) and following up after submissions to provide additional information, monitor results and adjust strategy accordingly.
Consistency builds trust, both with directory researchers and in the broader market. Firms that treat submissions as an annual admin task tend to tread water. Firms that treat them as a strategic marketing and positioning exercise see real progress.
Ten top tips for tackling your directory submissions this year
1. Start early and plan strategically.
Strong submissions need time, thought, and a clear strategy. Know who’s ranked where you want to be and make sure you’re highlighting why you deserve a place alongside them. And don’t leave it to a last-minute scramble.
2. Prioritise clarity.
Write in plain English. Spell out why each matter was significant. No jargon, no assumptions. Researchers aren’t psychic.
3. Be ruthless about relevance.
Choose work highlights that truly showcase your key strengths. If it doesn’t prove your expertise, leave it out.
4. Show the significance.
Tell the story of what you did, why it mattered, and the outcome, not just that something happened. Nobody wants to read a load of legal waffle that suggests you ought to just “know” what it’s about. Explain it cleanly.
5. Nail your matter summaries.
Clear, concise, and focused on your role, contribution and (see above) the significance for why you should be ranked.
6. Select and manage referees carefully.
Referees can make or break your submission. Choose wisely and prepare them properly.
7. Understand the data and join the dots.
Strong referee feedback doesn’t happen by accident. Understanding the data behind referee response rates and satisfaction scores is crucial if you want to improve outcomes. See our NPS report reality check for more on what the numbers really show.
8. Focus on the overview sections.
Use them to communicate your team growth, standout wins, and market positioning, not just a bland introduction. This is a wasted opportunity if all you’re going to do is repeat what’s on the website. This is where you set out your arguments for rankings and provide clear supporting evidence for what you’ve done, this year, that’s deserving of higher ranking.
9. Work on your submissions beyond the directories.
Don’t waste all the hard work. Turn standout matters and client quotes into case studies, website content, pitches, and social media posts. And remember… Referee strategy shouldn’t just start at submission time, it should be part of a year-round client listening programme. Capture client feedback regularly, act on it, and identify happy, engaged clients who are natural referees. This not only improves your chances of strong responses but strengthens client relationships too.
10. Build a long-term strategy, not a one-off effort.
Capture matters through the year, track your results, and adapt your approach. Serious about success? Outsourcing to a specialist agency like ELE could be the smartest move you make.
Conclusion
We believe the legal directories remain one of the most effective tools for law firms and chambers to build profile, credibility, and to develop opportunities. Far from being a last minute scrabble to get the form in, they can underpin and support your whole year’s strategic growth plan.
If your rankings aren’t where you want them to be, change is possible… but it starts with recognising that filling out a form is not enough.
Need help to assess and improve your rankings?
Contact ELE today to find out how we can help, from auditing past submissions to building a proactive plan for directory success… and even taking the whole year-round headache away for you.
