Legal directory rankings matter in India more than many lawyers admit. General counsel use them to build shortlists, international firms use them to choose Indian counsel, and law students and laterals use them to judge where to work. They are also one of the few forms of recognition that advocates and firms can pursue comfortably within the Bar Council's rules, because the rankings are produced by independent researchers.
Yet many submissions are written as if they were brochures, full of adjectives and short on facts. Researchers read hundreds of them in a season, and they skim past anything that does not help them make a decision.
How the research works
Directories such as Chambers and Partners and The Legal 500 combine three sources: the firm's written submission, interviews with the clients the firm nominates as referees, and conversations with peers in the market. The submission sets the frame. The referees confirm or contradict it. The market view tests it against the competition.
A strong submission therefore does two jobs. It gives researchers the evidence they need, and it prepares the ground for the referee interviews that follow.
What researchers look for
- Work highlights with substance. The nature of each matter, its value or significance, the firm's precise role, the opposing and co-counsel, and why it was complex or novel.
- Clear team information. Who leads the practice, who is rising, and what has changed since the last cycle, including arrivals and departures.
- Specific individual strengths. What each nominated lawyer is particularly known for, supported by examples.
- Referees who respond. A strong submission with unresponsive referees underperforms a modest one with engaged clients.
- Consistency. Claims that match what peers and clients say in interviews. Researchers notice when they do not.
Common mistakes
- Adjectives instead of facts. "A leading team of renowned experts" tells a researcher nothing.
- Too many minor matters, which dilute the significant ones.
- Confidential matters not clearly marked, which makes firms nervous and submissions vague.
- Referees chosen for seniority rather than their knowledge of the work, or never told to expect a call.
- Submissions drafted in a rush the week before the deadline.
Treat it as a cycle, not a deadline
The best submissions are built all year. That means logging significant matters as they close, with the details researchers need; keeping referee lists current and asking clients in advance; and reviewing the published rankings and editorial comments carefully when they come out, to understand how the firm is being seen.
It also means being realistic. Rankings move slowly, and a single strong year rarely changes them dramatically. Consistent, well-evidenced submissions over three or four cycles usually do.
What rankings are for
Directory recognition is a means, not an end. Its value lies in what it signals to clients and recruits, and in the discipline it imposes on a firm to understand its own work. Firms that treat the process as an annual chance to take stock of their practice tend to get far more from it than those that treat it as a form to fill in.