You may not be surprised to hear that the majority of firms that approach us for help assume that rankings are won and lost on the basis of the submission. The work highlights, the overview, the narrative. That’s where the time goes, and it’s understandable that they think it’s the most important element.
But the submission – particularly for Chambers & Partners – is not where most rankings are decided.
Researchers use it as a starting point. What they’re looking for, from that point on, is corroboration: evidence from outside the firm that what you’ve written about yourself is true. That evidence comes, primarily, from referees, supported by desk research and industry interviews.
What researchers are actually doing
Chambers and Legal 500 researchers treat every submission as the starting point for an investigation, not the end point. The submission tells them what the firm believes about itself. The research process tests whether these are simply bold claims or facts.
Referees are the evidence to the submission’s argument. Strong feedback from credible, recent contacts gives a researcher the external evidence they need to act on your submission. A low response rate, or feedback too vague to quote, leaves claims hanging. Researchers don’t rank on claims they can’t substantiate. However beautifully written the submission is (and let’s be honest, ours are a work of art).
What referee feedback actually moves
Strong referee feedback doesn’t just support an existing ranking. It can determine one.
A lawyer sitting on the edge of a band, or unranked despite good work, can gain significant ground as a result of a small number of targeted, specific responses from people who know what they did and can say so clearly. Feedback that speaks to the quality and complexity of the work, and to the lawyer’s role within it, gives a researcher the external evidence they need to make the case.
The reverse is equally true. A team defending a strong ranking against competitive pressure needs its referees to perform. Silence, or feedback too vague to quote, leaves the written case exposed.
When the submission can’t speak for itself
Some practices can’t say much on paper because of strict confidentiality. For those, referees carry almost the whole argument.
When matters are confidential and the submission is thin because it has to be, the referee’s account becomes the submission. A well-placed comment from someone who was there, saying the work was complex, sensitive, and expertly handled, can do more for a ranking than pages of anonymised narrative. Confidential practices that treat referees as an afterthought are handing an advantage to competitors who don’t.
Where most firms go wrong
The most common failure is treating the referee list as an administrative task. Firms fill the spreadsheet, submit it, and move on. What happens next is left to chance.
The patterns are familiar. Referee lists built on seniority rather than responsiveness. Contacts from matters two years old. Slots left unfilled. These are common mistakes and they matter. But the biggest failure happens after submission, when the research window opens and most firms go quiet. No reminders. No checking who has responded. No follow-up at all. Researchers reach out, emails land in spam, referees mean to respond and don’t. And the firm never knows.
Strong submissions, weak referee lists. The same firms wonder every year why their rankings don’t move.
Referees need managing, not just listing
The firms that perform best on referees treat it as a programme with its own timeline, running alongside the submission rather than tacked on at the end. They warm referees up before the research window opens. They brief them on what useful feedback looks like. They follow up when responses haven’t come in.
It isn’t a complicated process. But the firms that follow it tend to move up the rankings. The ones that don’t wonder why they haven’t.
For the practical detail on building and managing a referee list that performs, download the Law Firm Referee Checklist or read our guides on choosing and managing referees and handling confidential practices.
If you’d like to talk through your referee strategy, get in touch.
