Legal directory rankings are still a key feature of the legal market and often the starting point when clients are looking to instruct counsel. Submissions continue to matter in 2026 and yet many law firms find them time-consuming and frustrating to write and underperform as a result – not due to weak work but because their work highlights are poorly presented.

In this article we provide tips on how to craft a high-impact submission, and recap some of the best practices to accurately reflect key work.

Think Strategically and Ensure Close Collaboration Between Lawyers and BD

The first step when approaching a legal directory submission is to understand the purpose of the submission. Each publishing body is slightly different in what they are looking for so make sure you familiarise yourself with what exactly researchers are after. Approach the submission as a structured summary of key lawyers, work highlights and other practice-related updates, not as a sales pitch.

Next, make sure lawyers and other members of the BD team know what information you need and when. This will improve partner engagement and is vital as you gather relevant information ahead of deadlines. Don’t forget to include junior partners and associates in the submission process not only as they often hold vital matter information, but also for their own growth and development.

Consider developing a multi-year strategy for some directories eg: Chambers, as it can take a few research cycles to gain or improve a ranking.

Make Matter Descriptions Compelling and Have them Tell a Story

More is not always better. A focused selection of high-quality matters is far more effective than a long list of generic work. Best practices in this regard include:

• Choosing matters that reflect complexity, novelty and/or strategic significance;
• Showing a range of skillsets eg: cross-border, advisory, regulatory etc;
• Clearly illustrating in each matter why you/your firm stands out – providing context and the impact;
• Being precise and avoiding vague assertions like “advised on a number of matters” or “provided strategic guidance on…”.

Balance Technical Precision with Plain English

Legal directory researchers appreciate accessibility and submissions that are not only technically accurate but also easy to digest. Make sure you write in simple sentences, minimise the use of acronyms and flowery language, and offer easy-to-follow explanations on why a particular work highlight or practice area development is important. Don’t fall into the trap of using legal jargon and instead make sure you explain matters that require specialist knowledge succinctly. Try to also offer the researcher an opportunity to follow up if they have further questions or need clarification on anything.

Select Responsive Client Referees

Client feedback continues to be one of the most important features of the directory submission process.

Make sure you select referees you have worked closely with recently and are confident will a) respond to a researcher’s request for commentary and b) provide positive commentary about your work! Briefing them on the process is helpful, as is giving them a heads up on when to expect to hear from the researcher so they don’t overlook the ‘call for commentary’ email. Researchers value informed and candid feedback as this helps shape their overall view of the market.

Approach Submissions with a Long-Term Approach

Rankings often take years to shift significantly so don’t give up hope – a strong submission reflects ongoing high performance and development.

Whether it’s BD or a lawyer, the key contact working on the submission should stay in regular contact with researchers and review their feedback carefully. Try to identify gaps in the submission or any missed opportunities that can be improved in future years. Closely track how your practice is evolving too.

A strong directory submission boosts external validation and internal clarity and should be approached thoughtfully – with the right tools, a winning submission is not only possible but completely achievable.