Chambers Submissions: What Law Firms Get Wrong, and How to Fix It

Understanding the process explains why certain mistakes matter so much.

• Submitting is free. Chambers states this plainly on its submissions page. Rankings cannot be bought.
• The submission is one source among several. Researchers combine it with referee interviews and wider market feedback.
• Referees are central. Chambers says that providing 20 to 30 referees in support of a submission is "essential". Interviews with referees are conducted in confidence and quotes are anonymised.
• Submissions are not published. Chambers says it will not print or quote directly from a submission, and its templates allow confidential information to be flagged.
• Templates and deadlines vary by guide. Always work from the current template and research schedule for the guide and practice area concerned.

In short, the written submission makes the case, and the referees provide the evidence. Weakness in either undermines the other.

1. Submitting everywhere, or never trying anywhere new

Some firms submit to every possible category because they always have. Others never submit to a category where they now have real strength. Both waste opportunities. Submissions take partner time, and each one should have a realistic chance of recognition or of building towards it.

Fix: review your categories every year. Prioritise practices where you have strong recent work and willing referees, and plan first-time submissions deliberately, not at the last minute.

2. Writing a list instead of an argument

A Chambers submission is not a record of everything the team did. It is an argument for why the team, and particular lawyers, deserve to be ranked, or ranked higher. A submission with no clear message leaves the researcher to work it out.

Fix: before drafting, write two or three sentences on what has changed in the practice this year and what you want the researcher to conclude. Make every section support that conclusion.

3. Spreading attention evenly across every partner

Featuring every partner equally can dilute the case for the people most likely to be ranked or to move up. Chambers' research team has publicly encouraged firms to think strategically about who has had a standout year and which rising lawyers deserve attention.

Fix: decide which individuals you are making the case for, then make sure each has strong work highlights and referees who can speak to their involvement.

4. Describing activity, not significance

The most common weakness in Chambers submissions is the work highlight that says what happened but not why it mattered. Chambers' own published hints suggest each work highlight should answer four questions: what happened, why it was significant for the client, why it was significant for the wider industry or practice area, and what its current status is.

Fix: for each matter, lead with a one-sentence summary of what the team did, then explain the complexity, the stakes for the client and any wider importance. Cut technical detail that does not serve that purpose.

5. Leaving space unused, or filling it with weak or old work

The Chambers UK template has room for up to 20 work highlights, and Chambers' published hints urge firms to use as many as possible. But space is only valuable if it is filled with strong, recent work. Old matters and minor instructions added to reach a number weaken the overall impression.

Fix: capture significant matters throughout the year, so you have more strong candidates than spaces when the deadline arrives. Favour matters from the current research period.

6. Getting confidentiality wrong

Firms make two opposite mistakes: leaving out important work because it is confidential, and naming confidential clients in matters marked as publishable. The Chambers UK template splits work highlights between publishable and confidential matters, and Chambers says it will not draw any negative inference from confidential listings. Its guidance also specifically warns against confidential clients appearing on publishable matters.

Fix: clear confidentiality early with the responsible partner and, where needed, the client. Use the confidential sections properly, and double-check that nothing confidential has crept into publishable sections.

7. Overclaiming or using the wrong figures

Unsupported superlatives ("market-leading", "unrivalled") carry no weight, and claims that cannot be backed up undermine credibility. Chambers' hints are direct: if you assert something, make sure you can back it up with facts. Industry guidance from people who work closely with Chambers also stresses using the value of the matter itself, not the enterprise value of the client.

Fix: replace adjectives with facts: value, jurisdictions, parties, novelty and outcome. Where exact figures are sensitive, use a range or mark them as confidential.

8. Choosing referees by seniority, not responsiveness

A general counsel who never answers the researcher's call adds nothing. Chambers' own guidance suggests considering more junior members of the client team who worked closely on the matter and are more likely to respond.

Fix: choose referees who know the work well and will take the call, ideally people who worked closely with the team in the 12 months before the deadline, as the Chambers UK guidance suggests. Aim for a mix of clients across matters and seniority, and favour clients over non-clients.

9. Not asking or preparing referees

Chambers lists failing to check whether clients are happy to speak with it as a common mistake. A referee who is surprised by a researcher's call, or who has been asked by several firms in the same week, is less likely to respond helpfully.

Fix: ask every referee in advance, explain what to expect and when, and coordinate across practice groups so the same client is not overloaded. Brief referees on the process, but never script what they should say.

10. Referees who do not match the case you are making

If a submission argues for a particular partner's ranking but none of the referees worked closely with that partner, the evidence does not support the argument.

Fix: map each lawyer you are putting forward to at least a few referees who can speak about their work directly.

11. Starting too late

When work on a submission begins a few weeks before the deadline, the strongest matters are forgotten, confidentiality is not cleared in time and referees are contacted too late. The result is a submission built from whatever is easiest to describe.

Fix: treat directory work as a year-round process. Capture matters as they happen, maintain a running referee list and agree internal deadlines well ahead of Chambers' own.

12. Ignoring the results

When rankings are published, many firms celebrate or move on. Few compare the outcome with their submission, read the editorial commentary closely or look at which competitors moved and why. Inconsistent participation also has a cost: research is annual, and gaps in submissions make progress harder to sustain.

Fix: hold a short debrief after every publication. Note what the editorial commentary says, where the evidence was thin and what to change for the next cycle. Then keep submitting consistently.

Before you submit, check:

Chambers and The Legal 500 both rank firms and lawyers by practice area, but their templates, timetables, research approaches and categories differ. Submitting the same document to both, with the headings changed, is a common shortcut and an avoidable one. Each submission should be prepared to the directory's own requirements, even when the underlying matters are the same.

Our approach to legal directory submissions covers both directories as part of one programme, so matters and referees are coordinated without duplicating effort.

A ranking is only valuable if people see it. Once the results are out:

• Update partner profiles, practice pages and proposals with accurate rankings and the correct year, using Chambers' approved wording and logos
• Share relevant editorial commentary internally, and externally where permitted
• Thank referees
• Record lessons for the next cycle while they are fresh

Directory recognition also feeds other channels. Clients and referrers check rankings when verifying a recommendation, and AI assistants draw on directory content when asked which firms to consider. Our guide to how to get new clients for a law firm explains how directories fit into the wider picture.