Firms and sets in sensitive practice areas often reach submission season and conclude that referees are largely off the table. Their best work is confidential. Their clients cannot be named. So they submit a thin list, or none at all, and hope the written narrative carries them through.
It does not. And the consequences show up in the rankings.
Why confidentiality makes referees more important, not less
When a firm submits a matter with full detail, a researcher can assess the work on its own terms. They can read the facts, understand the complexity, and test whether the overall submission’s claims hold up against the matter detail.
When a submission is redacted or heavily anonymised, that option is gone. The researcher cannot put the same weight on the matter summary because there is not enough there to evaluate. Something has to fill that evidential gap, and that something is the referee.
At Chambers and Partners in particular, referee feedback accounts for a significant portion of the ranking decision. In categories where the work is sensitive, that proportion tends to be higher still. A strong, specific referee response becomes the primary evidence base.
We see the consequences of this across clients in sensitive practice areas. Firms doing genuinely strong work fail to break through to a higher band, or lose rankings they should hold, not because the submission was poorly written, but because there was no external voice to back it up.
You have more options than you think
The most common mistake is treating confidentiality as a binary. Either everything can be disclosed, or nothing can, and if nothing can, referees are not worth pursuing. That is not how the process works.
There are three situations firms find themselves in, and each has a workable approach.
The first is where the matter itself is sensitive but the client relationship is not. You cannot describe what you did in any detail, but there is no reason you cannot name the client. A named client with no matter description still gives a researcher something to hold. And a named client who then provides a strong referee response gives them considerably more.
The second is the reverse. The client contact is the reason for sensitivity, but the nature of the work is not. You can describe the matter in reasonable detail without identifying who it was for. A well-described anonymous matter, backed by a referee who confirms the complexity and the quality of what was delivered, is a viable submission.
The third situation is where neither the client nor the matter can be disclosed in any meaningful way. This is where most firms give up. It is also where the least-used option becomes most valuable.
When nothing can be named, peers step in
Referees do not have to be clients. This is underused precisely where it matters most.
Think about who else has direct, first-hand experience of the work. The solicitor who instructed you. The firm that worked alongside you on the same transaction or dispute. External experts brought in on the matter. In-house contacts within the client organisation who are not the relationship partner, and who may have more flexibility.
These are peer referees, and in highly confidential practice areas they are often the most viable category available. They have seen the work up close. They can speak to the quality, the complexity, and what it was like to deal with the team. They can do all of that without disclosing a single piece of privileged information, because the feedback a researcher wants is not a description of the matter. It is a description of the team.
A referee can say:
- “We instructed them on a complex, high-value matter. They were technically precise, calm under pressure, and easy to work with throughout.”
- “They moved quickly in a fast-moving situation and the outcome reflected that. We would instruct them again.”
- “One of the few teams we go to when the work is genuinely difficult. The quality is consistent.”
None of that requires the matter to be named. It does require a referee who knows what they saw and will say so when contacted.
Responsiveness matters more than profile
A senior General Counsel at a well-known institution looks strong on paper. But if they do not respond to the researcher’s email, or respond with something vague and perfunctory, they have contributed nothing. The ranking decision is not made on the quality of your referee list. It is based on the quality of the responses.
The right question for every potential referee is not ‘how impressive are they?’ but ‘will they respond, and will they say something useful?’ Recent contact matters. Direct experience of the work matters. Willingness to engage matters. Seniority and brand name do not compensate for absence or vagueness.
Across our clients, the referees who move the needle are almost always the ones closest to the actual work. Not the most senior person in the relationship, but the person who was in the room. Remind yourself of this: It’s not about who you know, it’s about what they know.
Brief them before the researcher does
Researchers contact referees without warning. If your referee does not know they have been named, cannot place the matter you are referencing, or misses the email entirely because it goes to spam, the feedback does not happen.
A short briefing email sent before the submission window closes makes a significant difference. Tell the referee they have been named. Remind them of the work in question. Let them know they may hear from a researcher in the coming weeks, and suggest they add the relevant researcher domain to their safe sender list.
You are not asking them to say anything specific. You are making sure that when the contact from Chambers happens, they know to do something about it.
If your practice area means your submissions are regularly redacted or anonymised, referee strategy needs more attention than most firms give it. Get in touch to talk through who you should be naming and how to manage them before the next window opens. Or explore our legal directory submissions services and Directories Hub for more on referee strategy.
