You submit your strongest work of the year then watch the ranking stay exactly the same. When that happens, the explanation usually offered is that the directory got it wrong: the table is political, a better-known name pushed ahead, the researchers missed the point. Occasionally that is true. Far more often, the work was strong but the submission did not explain why so… what was important… and why it should support your arguments.
Most firms submit on the assumption that directories reward good work. Strong matters go in, strong rankings come out. That would be fair if researchers were judging the work. But they’re actually judging the written account of it, and the gap between the two is where good firms get stuck.
That gap tends to open in a handful of predictable places.
Researchers respond to proof, not reputation
The researcher reading your submission is not a lawyer. They are not part of your firm. They are not your client. They can’t read a couple of lines and decipher the impact on the client or the market. Or why the matter was hard or novel or what your team actually did. The matter has not let you down. The write-up has. Work that should set you apart ends up looking like everyone else’s.
Referees decide more of the score than firms expect
The write-up is only half of it. A large part of the weighting comes from what your referees say, yet many firms treat the referee list as the last form to fill in before the deadline. Nominate your busiest partners’ busiest clients and you have picked the people least likely to take the researcher’s call. When a referee doesn’t respond, your strongest matter goes uncorroborated, and an uncorroborated matter counts for very little however good it was. The firm whose referees answered gets the credit for work no better than yours.. Even if the client name is confidential, you can still put forward a useful referee.
Curate your matters around the practice area definition
Every practice area carries a definition that sets out what it covers and what researchers are considering. The strongest matters answer that definition directly. Start from the definition, choose the work that shows exactly what the category rewards, and build the submission on that. Add a household name or a large matter value and you strengthen the case further. But neither can carry a matter that doesn’t fit the definition to begin with. This is especially true if you’re submitting the same matter to multiple categories: the focus of a real estate acquisition matter summary must not be the same in both a real estate submission and an M&A one.
Category choice decides who you are measured against
A strong matter can still count for nothing if it is entered in the wrong category, because it is then measured against the wrong peers. Researchers set aside work that falls outside a category’s scope. They don’t mark it down, they ignore it, and that is decided before anyone reads a word of the write-up. Where you submit matters as much as what you submit.
One strong year is rarely enough
Directories want to see repeated evidence before they move a firm or an individual, often over three years or more. A strong year followed by silence registers as a one-off rather than a pattern. Keep submitting steadily, gathering matters and client feedback as they happen, and you build the record a researcher is willing to act on.
Rankings shape AI shortlists
Directory profiles sit at the top of search results for practice-area queries, and they are among the first sources AI tools rely on when someone asks who to instruct. Chambers and Legal 500 read as credible references. So a ranking, or the lack of one, now shapes the shortlist a prospective client sees before they make any contact, in a conversation you never know is happening.
Seniority doesn’t determine rankings, strategy does.
Across our clients, the firms that climb are rarely the ones doing better work. Across most of the bands, nearly everyone submitting is excellent. What separates them is how they select, explain and support the work.
The decisions are practical. Curate the matters that best answer the practice area definition, and build the submission around them. Write each one so a non-specialist can see the difficulty and the result. (See our guide to writing matter summaries.) Line up your referees early, make sure they know to expect the call, and follow up, so a missed phone call doesn’t decide your ranking. Collect client feedback through the year instead of reconstructing it in January.
Referees deserve particular attention. Directories interview them directly, so a specific reason why the client would instruct the team again counts for far more than a warm but vague endorsement. None of this comes down to doing better work. It comes down to getting the strategy right.
If your rankings aren’t where they should be
If your firm has sat in the same band for two cycles or more, or isn’t ranked where it should be, the problem is rarely the quality of the work. Our Directories and Ranking Strategy guide looks at your past submissions, referee response rates, matter and category choices and write-ups, alongside what your competitors are doing and what the rest of your marketing says. Then we tell you where the gap is and how to close it.
