Legal directory competition has never been fiercer. As publications continue to expand and refine their practice, sector and jurisdictional coverage, researchers are increasingly discerning about what – and where – work is worthy of ranking. That means even excellent submissions can struggle if they’re positioned in the wrong place.
Firms often build submissions around their internal practice structure – they’ll find the submission category that matches their own department name, gather matters from key partners in that department, and submit.
But thinking carefully about category strategy shouldn’t be overlooked. It determines the market you’re competing in, the firms you’ll be benchmarked against, and the lens through which researchers interpret your work.
In other words, long before a submission is written, your category choices are already shaping the outcome. If your rankings feel stuck, or if you’re navigating submissions in a new category or jurisdiction, our advice is to take a step back before you act.
Your first decision is which legal directories to prioritise
The US rankings landscape is both large and complex. Between guides like Chambers USA and Legal 500 US, and specialist publications such as Lexology 100: Data, GCR, GIR, or IAM Patent, firms are often navigating a wide range of potential categories and submission opportunities.
The first question should be: Where do we want to compete?
You may choose a specialist directory if you want to stand out in a more focused competitive pool, or if the clients you’re targeting actively follow or trust a particular specialist publication. These guides allow you to complement, not duplicate, your presence in the main directories.
At the same time, broader guides such as Chambers and Legal 500 remain central to many firms’ rankings strategies. These publications offer the widest market visibility and are often best suited to firms with large, multi-disciplinary teams whose work spans multiple practice areas and jurisdictions.
In most cases, the answer is not choosing one or the other, but using both strategically. The key is to be deliberate about which publications serve which purpose within your overall rankings strategy.
The next question to consider is geographical positioning
In guides such as Chambers USA, rankings exist at both state and nationwide levels. Submitting to a nationwide table may mean competing against the largest global firms in the market. A state or regional category, by contrast, places you alongside a very different peer group. Choosing the right positioning can therefore make a significant difference to how your work is evaluated.
That decision should be based on evidence, not aspiration. Virtual business may have blurred geographical boundaries, but directories still expect to see a clear footprint in the jurisdiction you are submitting to. If you pitch your practice as national, you’ll need to demonstrate work and client relationships across multiple jurisdictions — not just a strong presence in a single city or state.
In practice, geographical positioning is also part of how firms build momentum in the rankings. In most cases, obtaining a nationwide ranking is contingent on first establishing strong, sustained recognition at state level.
Your submissions should reflect the market as directories define it
One of the biggest missed opportunities is when firms rely too heavily on internal practice divisions. Categories are often matched directly to department names, and submissions are built around the matters handled by that particular group. But directories do not always define or structure practice areas in the same way firms do.
Fortunately, publications’ practice area definitions are a key resource to avoid wasted effort – they clarify the types of matters and clients to include, and often highlight where categories overlap or differ so you know where your work fits best. For example, Chambers USA notes that insurance and international trade arbitration disputes are not prioritised in the International Arbitration section, as they sit in separate categories. Similarly, the Energy Transition section does not consider associated environmental work, which is covered in the separate Climate Change chapter.
Because directories constantly refine their coverage, these definitions evolve over time. New categories are introduced, existing tables split into more specialised rankings, and remits shift as the market develops.
If you overlook these changes, you risk presenting your work through an outdated lens. Technology rankings are a good example. What began as a narrower IT & Outsourcing category in Chambers USA has expanded into a broader technology sector ranking, with outsourcing now assessed separately. Firms that continue to focus on Technology Transactions teams may miss strong matters from other groups — such as IP, M&A, Finance or Data Protection — whose work touches the tech sector.
You can explore practice area definitions in full on the various directory websites, for example Chambers’ and Legal 500.
You should reassess your category strategy regularly
Firms often continue submitting in the same categories year after year simply because that is what they have always done. But practices evolve: teams grow, merge, specialise or shift focus, and new workstreams emerge while others become less central. If your category choices haven’t kept pace with those changes, rankings can start to stagnate — not because the work isn’t strong, but because the positioning no longer reflects the reality of the practice.
Ultimately, improving directory rankings isn’t just about writing better submissions. It’s about making smarter decisions earlier in the process.
At ELE, we work with firms on directory strategy as well as legal directory submissions themselves. That includes helping teams:
- identify the right categories to target
- review existing submissions and rankings performance
- position practices more effectively in the market
- and develop longer-term directory strategies aligned with firm priorities.
If you’re reviewing your directory approach for the year ahead, we’d be happy to talk.
