Confirmed historical dates for the 2025 cycle

Why Chambers used multiple deadlines

Latin America research includes multiple jurisdictions, practices and editorial teams. Not every category could begin and conclude research at the same time.

A firm participating in several tables needed its own internal calendar. Applying one date to the entire organization could result in late submissions and confusion across teams.

A submission was a factual source—not an advertising campaign

Chambers defines a submission as a collection of factual information concerning a defined practice area. It is used together with referees, interviews, market knowledge and other sources.

• Description and development of the practice.
• Information about relevant partners, counsel and associates.
• Public and confidential work highlights.
• Clients, sectors and jurisdictions involved.
• Lateral hires, promotions and team changes.
• Candidates proposed for individual recognition.
• Diversity and inclusion information requested in the form.
• A separate referee spreadsheet.

How the 12 September 2023 round should have been planned

Using that historical deadline as an example, an organized firm would have worked backwards for at least twelve weeks.

This is a recommended operational reconstruction, not an additional schedule issued by Chambers. It illustrates how much work needed to take place before the official deadline.

Work highlights needed to demonstrate capability—not merely activity

A matter did not become more important because it was described as “leading,” “innovative” or “unprecedented.” The submission needed to explain why.

Practice evidence and individual nominations needed to align

A firm could provide information concerning its department and nominate lawyers for individual recognition. These elements required related evidence but did not necessarily produce identical outcomes.

Nominating a lawyer solely because of seniority, title or internal expectations did not replace the need for work and market recognition.

Referees needed to be selected through direct experience

Chambers could contact clients or other people with recent knowledge of the practice on a confidential basis. The most senior title did not necessarily produce the most useful feedback.

• Obtain permission before sharing contact information.
• Select sources that had worked directly with the team.
• Verify name, title, organization, email and language.
• Distribute referees across partners, matters and sectors.
• Avoid dependence on one company.
• Do not include the same person repeatedly on one spreadsheet.
• Explain that contact could arrive from a Chambers domain.
• Do not draft or direct the response.
• Record which source supported each practice.

Review needed to protect accuracy and confidentiality

• Confirm that the firm’s role was not exaggerated.
• Avoid disclosing information protected by professional duties.
• Use confidential fields correctly.
• Check that matters were not duplicated without explanation.
• Connect each candidate with verifiable work.
• Remove adjectives that added no evidence.
• Retain a final copy of the materials submitted.

The deadline was not the end of the process

Editorial research began after delivery. Chambers could review information, interview sources, analyze the market and request clarification.

The 2025 guide launched on 22 August 2024

Publication revealed the department and lawyer rankings for the Latin America 2025 edition. Firms then needed to confirm exactly which recognition had been received.

• Confirm the practice, jurisdiction, band and ranked lawyer.
• Update institutional pages and biographies.
• Include the outcome in relevant proposals.
• Prepare internal communications before external announcements.
• Recognize contributions from partners, counsel and associates.
• Avoid presenting the ranking as a guarantee of legal outcomes.
• Do not claim that the entire firm was ranked when recognition applied to one practice.
• Begin recording new matters for the following cycle immediately.

How to evaluate the performance of the cycle

An absence or demotion should not automatically have been attributed to drafting. The outcome also depended on competition, referees, market activity and editorial judgment.

Lessons from the 2025 edition

• The guide year was not the year in which preparation began.
• Deadlines needed to be checked by practice and jurisdiction.
• A submission could not be built solely from partner memory.
• Work highlights needed to be recorded throughout the year.
• Individual candidates required their own evidence.
• Referees required consent and direct experience.
• The submission needed to be factual, clear and verifiable.
• The result depended on a comparative assessment.
• Activation began after publication, but the following cycle began immediately.

The visible calendar contains one deadline. The real calendar contains months of collection, decisions, review, research and learning.

Mistakes that should have been avoided

• Treating the 2025 edition as a 2025 application. Research began much earlier.
• Publishing one deadline without identifying the table. Schedules could vary.
• Starting weeks before closing. Evidence arrived incomplete.
• Selecting matters through volume. The strongest examples became obscured.
• Using promotional language. Adjectives replaced explanation.
• Nominating every partner. Candidates lacked sufficient individual evidence.
• Selecting referees by title. Sources had limited direct knowledge of the service.
• Failing to confirm permission. Confidential information was put at risk.
• Promising a ranking. No consultant controlled the editorial outcome.
• Stopping after submission. The firm failed to prepare for research or the next cycle.

Frequently asked questions