How to get it right before your submission window opens
Most US law firms don’t choose their directory categories. They inherit them. A practice group exists, a department head is named, and someone maps the team to the closest-sounding Chambers or Legal 500 category. The submission follows the organisational chart, not the directory.
This is one of the most consequential mistakes a firm can make in its directories programme, and it happens before a single word of the submission is written.
Why category selection is a strategic decision, not an admin step
Category selection determines three things: the competitive pool you are judged against, the jurisdictional claim you are making, and the practice definition you are being held to.
Get any one of these wrong and the submission cannot recover the ranking. A band one submission in the wrong category produces a weak result. A genuinely strong practice, filed under the wrong category, becomes invisible. We see this pattern regularly across US firms. The writing is sound. The matters are strong. The category is the problem.
The first decision: which publications deserve your focus?
The generalist guides, Chambers USA and Legal 500 US, carry the broadest commercial weight for most US practices. For some specialisms, the specialist publications add real value. GCR for competition, GIR for investigations, IAM Patent for patent work, Lexology 100: Data for data privacy, cybersecurity and AI practices. These are worth pursuing when the practice genuinely centres on that specialism and the firm has the depth to be competitive.
Where we see focus diluted is when firms pursue specialist publications as a supplement to weak generalist rankings rather than as a complement to strong ones. A mid-table Chambers position and a specialist ranking in the same area does not add up to a strong market message. The better approach is to build the generalist position first, then layer specialist recognition where the practice warrants it.
The second decision: national or state-level?
This is the decision we see firms get wrong most consistently. Submitting nationally positions you against the leading national practices. In most US practice areas, that is a very short list of firms, and the directories apply that standard accordingly.
State-level rankings are not a consolation prize. They are a different competitive pool, and in many cases the more credible and commercially relevant one. A firm with a dominant New York practice and modest work elsewhere is not a national practice. Submitting nationally does not make it one. The directories will assess it against firms that genuinely operate coast to coast, and the ranking will reflect that gap.
The principle we see play out consistently is this: state-level credibility has to precede a credible national submission. Firms that build strong state positions first, demonstrate genuine presence in multiple jurisdictions, then make the case for national recognition, tend to move. Firms that skip to national submissions and hope the ranking follows rarely see the same traction.
There is also a geographical footprint test that directories apply in practice, if not always in writing. Claiming a national position requires demonstrable national work. Matters spread across multiple states, clients based across multiple jurisdictions, referees who can speak to the firm’s work outside its home market. Stating a preference for national recognition is not the same as evidencing it.
The third decision: are you in the right category?
Directory category definitions do not map onto law firm department structures. This sounds obvious. In practice, it catches firms out repeatedly.
A firm with a Technology group might look at Chambers USA and assume the Technology category is the natural home. But the directory’s definition of that category may have shifted significantly from what it was two or three years ago. The Technology rankings in Chambers USA have evolved considerably, moving from narrower IT and outsourcing definitions toward broader technology practice coverage. Firms that stopped reading how those categories were being redefined found themselves submitting to a category that no longer described their strongest work, or missing the category that did.
Both Chambers USA and Legal 500 US publish category definitions and scope guidance. Reading them before finalising a category choice doesn’t take long. Not reading them can cost a submission cycle.
We regularly work with firms that have been submitting to the same categories for three or four years without reviewing whether those categories still reflect how the directories define their practice. In a stable market that carries a modest risk. In a market where directory structures are actively evolving, it is a significant one.
Before your next submission window opens
If you are preparing US submissions and are not certain your category choices reflect how the directories define your practice, rather than how your firm does, that is worth reviewing before the window opens. Changing category strategy mid-cycle is possible but costly. Getting it right before the submission starts is not.
Our Directories and Rankings Audit covers exactly this: publication selection, national versus state-level positioning, category fit, and whether your current approach is working against the ranking you are trying to build. It is designed for firms that want to understand why their rankings have stalled, and what to do differently before the next cycle.
If you would like to understand what that review covers, or how ELE supports US directory submissions, get in touch with us.
