As a follow up to our recent report: The Truth About Legal Rankings and Awards, Legal Media 360 spoke to a number of legal directory researchers and editors to obtain their feedback on what law firms typically get wrong with the content of their submissions.
The Basics
From the publications point of view, the best advice when completing submission forms is simply to use the relevant research form provided, following the guidelines on how to complete them, and meet the deadlines set. Readability is vital, “it’s so important to make it readable, and keep it concise and to the point – let us know why the matter is important and why this matter makes the lawyer and the firm different from the others”, says one researcher.
In principle this should be simple but many law firms still submit “sub-standard” forms. One of the main issues is a disconnect with what the publication wants and what the law firms think should be included in the submission forms.
Key Issues
Based on our conversations, here are some of the key issues with poorly written submissions in order of significance:
- Writing work highlights that are too long and complicated, or too short and not providing enough details about the matter.
- Not filling in all the required sections, resulting in an incomplete picture of a particular matter.
- Submitting an excessive number of matters which can result in the law firm’s “best work not getting recognised”. Law firms should not be submitting every case they have worked on – the rankings are not decided by work volume.
- Not highlighting why a case is important/significant: “If there is nothing significant about the matter, simply don’t include it in the submission.”
- The case/deal details are unclear. “For example, if it is a M&A case, who is the buyer, who is the seller, what is the target? Or if it is a litigation case, who is the defendant, who is the complainant, and what is the issue... I read lots of cases which only describe what the lawyers did but don’t mention the essence of this case.”
- Overuse of technical terminology. “They [the firms] should remember that researchers are not lawyers, and that they deal with hundreds of law firms per project, so aren’t too patient to read a four-page long judgement piece.”
- The firm/practice overview section should focus on recent developments and showcase what sets your firm apart from its peers. The researcher uses this information as a differentiator and it is used in the editorial write up. “Most firms just write generic b******t when they should be boasting about developments which they are genuinely proud of.”
- Providing insufficient or no supporting information for lawyer nominations. This includes their cases, role, clients, etc. “Some firms contacted me saying they want ‘Lawyer A’ to be ranked this year, but I couldn’t find his cases in the submissions so I wouldn’t rank him even though he is experienced.”
- Not prioritising submitted matters by importance. “The priority of the cases the firms provide in the submission is important, please make sure the landmark cases are in the top three cases in the submission.”
- Submitting the same matters as last year. Firms should ideally be submitting matters worked on in the past 12 months. “It's surprising how much old content we get."
Our Services
Law firms can have their submissions proof-read and edited by professional legal directory researchers through Legal Media 360. To ensure the information you provide to legal directories is relevant, concise and showcases your firm’s capabilities, please contact williamlo@legalmedia360.com for further details.
Please subscribe here to receive our e-newsletters, exclusive reports and more.