%402x.svg){kind=icon}
The Legal 500, submissions and market position
The Legal 500 can provide external validation, competitive context and visibility for a legal practice. Its value does not come from an isolated badge or a paid profile. It comes from editorial research comparing the evidence of each team within its market.
Effective participation requires more than completing a template. The firm must select matters capable of demonstrating quality, depth, consistency, team strength and relevance against competitors.
The objective should not be to describe the firm as excellent through adjectives. It should be to enable the researcher to reach that conclusion through organized evidence.
The Legal 500 does not reward the effort involved in preparing a submission. It evaluates the position that the evidence can support.
Elegant drafting cannot compensate for weak matters, disengaged referees or a practice dependent on one individual.
The strategy begins well before the deadline and continues after publication.
The Legal 500 is a comparative research process organized by practice and jurisdiction
The directory researches legal markets and publishes rankings, editorial commentary and individual recognition. Firms are compared within defined jurisdictions and practice areas.
Firm evidence
Submissions, matters, teams, clients, practice development and relevant information.
Competitive context
Editorial knowledge, feedback, reputation, track record and position against alternatives.
Editorial decision
Researchers and editors interpret the available evidence and determine outcomes.
There is no public formula through which a firm can calculate its future position. Categories also operate within different market conditions, client bases, team sizes and levels of competition.
A submission does not create the practice’s capability. It makes the existing capability visible, organized and understandable.
The research combines several sources
The official methodology explains that rankings are supported by submissions, market analysis and feedback from clients, peers and other market participants.
| Source | Contribution | Risk when absent |
|---|---|---|
| Submission | Structured information about the practice, team, matters and development. | The researcher depends more heavily on public information and prior knowledge. |
| Referees | Confidential perspectives from people with direct experience. | The proposition lacks sufficient external validation. |
| Market | Reputation, comparisons and feedback from other sources. | The internal narrative may not match external perception. |
| History | Track record, consistency, evolution and previous performance. | One strong year may not demonstrate a sustainable position. |
| Public information | Website, profiles, news, matters, content and other sources. | Public inconsistencies may weaken the submission. |
The firm cannot control the editorial outcome. It can control the quality of its information, evidence selection, referee preparation and narrative consistency.
Editorial research and commercial products are independent
The Legal 500 distinguishes the editorial process from commercial products. An editorial submission does not require the purchase of a profile, and purchasing promotional products does not guarantee a recommendation.
Research and rankings
Assesses practices and lawyers, receives submissions and referees and publishes editorial outcomes.
Profiles and products
Offers promotional spaces and tools separate from the editorial decision.
A firm may be recommended without purchasing a profile. It may also purchase visibility without receiving a ranking.
What The Legal 500 may consider when assessing a practice
Official information refers to factors including team strength and depth, technical capability, quality of work, clients, reputation, market position, track record and future investment.
- Capability to handle complex or innovative work.
- Consistency across partners, counsel and associates.
- Depth beyond one or two recognized partners.
- Quality and relevance of clients served.
- Participation in significant transactions, disputes or projects.
- Credibility of practitioners among clients and the market.
- Historical track record of the practice.
- Investment, lateral hires and future development.
- Growth in clients or market share.
- Strength in associated practice areas.
- International or cross-border capability where relevant.
- Use of technology to improve client service.
Not every factor carries the same weight in every category. The firm must understand what distinguishes leading work within the relevant market.
Category selection is a positioning decision
A submission requires time from partners, lawyers, marketing professionals and clients. The firm should participate where it has sufficient activity, evidence, depth and ambition.
- Review the definition and coverage of the category.
- Analyze the firms and teams currently ranked.
- Identify the type of work that characterizes the market.
- Confirm that sufficient recent matters exist.
- Verify continuity and depth within the team.
- Assess whether appropriate referees are available.
- Define the position the firm intends to build over several cycles.
- Avoid categories selected only through internal aspiration.
A new firm may submit even if it is not currently ranked. It should nevertheless recognize that market recognition may require several cycles of consistent evidence.
Matters must demonstrate more than volume
A long list of routine matters does not necessarily strengthen a submission. The selection should explain why each matter is relevant to the category.
| Element | Question | Strategic value |
|---|---|---|
| Client | Which organization or interest was involved? | Provides context regarding scale, industry and relevance. |
| Problem | What was at stake? | Explains complexity and consequences. |
| Role | Which responsibility did the firm assume? | Distinguishes leadership from secondary participation. |
| Complexity | Which legal, regulatory or commercial elements made it difficult? | Demonstrates technical capability and judgment. |
| Outcome | What occurred and what may be communicated? | Explains impact without creating a guarantee. |
| Team | Which lawyers participated and how? | Connects evidence with candidates and depth. |
| Differentiation | What does the matter demonstrate against competitors? | Contributes to a market-position narrative. |
Drafting should be precise, factual and sufficiently contextualized. Adjectives such as “groundbreaking,” “leading” or “innovative” require explanation.
The practice should demonstrate depth—not only individual names
The reputation of recognized partners may be important, but the methodology also considers the strength of the complete practice.
Partners
Matter leadership, relationships, experience, specialization and reputation.
Counsel and associates
Delivery capability, succession, knowledge and operational depth.
Future of the practice
Hiring, promotions, technology, sectors and new capabilities.
Each nominated lawyer should be connected with matters, responsibilities and evidence. A list of names without demonstrated activity creates little clarity.
Referees are a central part of the strategy
The Legal 500 requests lists of people able to comment legitimately on the firm. The referee does not need to hold the most senior title; direct and recent experience is more important.
- Obtain consent before providing personal information.
- Select people with direct experience of the practice.
- Prioritize recent and substantive relationships.
- Avoid depending on one company or contact.
- Distribute referees across partners, matters and sectors.
- Verify name, title, company and contact details.
- Explain the process without dictating responses.
- Contact referees when the directory confirms the research window.
- Avoid fatigue caused by using the same person across too many categories.
Official guidance recommends providing as many referees as possible and offers approximately twenty per practice as a useful minimum guideline. Quantity does not replace quality, consent or direct experience.
A highly senior referee with limited knowledge of the work may be less useful than a person with direct experience of the team and service.
The narrative should connect evidence, team and evolution
A submission should not read as a collection of unrelated answers. It should help the researcher understand a consistent story about the practice.
- The current position of the practice.
- The matters and markets in which it has greatest depth.
- What changed since the previous cycle.
- Which lawyers lead and which teams support them.
- Which matters demonstrate the proposition.
- Which clients and referees can validate it.
- Which investments the firm is making.
- Why the evolution matters within the market.
The strongest submission is not the one using the most ambitious language. It is the one reducing the work required to understand why the practice deserves attention.
Submissions must use the official templates and portal
The Legal 500 publishes edition-specific templates and requires files to be uploaded through its portal. Firms should not modify the structure of the official formats.
Late submissions may not receive a complete review. Preparation should work backwards from the official deadline and include partner review and client permissions.
The strategy should not begin when the calendar is published
The strongest submissions are supported by a year-round experience-capture system.
- Record relevant matters when they open and close.
- Document role, complexity, lawyers and impact.
- Mark public and confidential information.
- Record permissions and communications restrictions.
- Update team changes and new capabilities.
- Maintain a map of clients and potential referees.
- Review previous rankings and feedback.
- Compare practice development with market movement.
- Align the website, profiles and institutional narrative.
A firm collecting everything during the final weeks will often miss matters, produce incomplete descriptions and depend excessively on partner memory.
A ranking creates value when the firm knows how to activate it
An editorial recommendation may support reputation, pitches, profiles, international relationships, recruitment and trust. It should not be communicated as a guarantee of results.
Recognition and learning
Share outcomes, analyze progress, identify gaps and recognize team contributions.
Context and evidence
Update profiles, website and proposals with an accurate explanation of the recognition.
Clients and referrals
Use the outcome as a relationship touchpoint without excessive self-promotion.
Continuous improvement
Record matters, develop lawyers and address weaknesses from the beginning.
How to measure a Legal 500 strategy
Percentage of relevant matters captured during the year.
Strength, diversity and clarity of selected matters.
Consent, response and variety of sources.
Lawyers supported by sufficient evidence.
Compliance with timing, reviews and delivery.
Alignment among submission, website, profiles and market.
Changes in ranking, recognition and editorial commentary.
Use of recognition in pitches, relationships and content.
Opportunities and conversations influenced by the ranking.
A decline or absence does not automatically demonstrate a poor submission. Outcomes also depend on competitor movement, market feedback and editorial judgment.
A 90-day preparation plan
Common Legal 500 mistakes
- Starting too late. The firm depends on incomplete information and urgent reviews.
- Submitting too many weak matters. Volume dilutes the strongest evidence.
- Describing without context. The researcher cannot understand why the matter is relevant.
- Exaggerating the role. The narrative loses credibility against other sources.
- Depending on a star partner. Practice depth is not demonstrated.
- Selecting referees by seniority. The sources possess limited direct experience.
- Failing to obtain consent. The client relationship and data quality are put at risk.
- Reusing identical text. The submission does not explain what changed during the cycle.
- Confusing paid profiles with rankings. The firm develops incorrect expectations.
- Promising internal results. No consultant controls the editorial decision.
Legal Advanta’s perspective
The Legal 500 can strengthen a firm’s positioning, but it should not become an isolated campaign or a competition in promotional adjectives.
Legal Advanta helps organize evidence, select matters, structure narratives, coordinate referees, prepare profiles and connect the process with the firm’s institutional strategy.
We do not guarantee rankings. We build processes that make the firm’s genuine experience clearer, more consistent and more competitive during the research.
Frequently asked questions
What is The Legal 500?
It is a directory researching and comparing firms, practices and lawyers within specific jurisdictions and practice areas.
Does an editorial submission have a fee?
No. Editorial research is independent from paid profiles and commercial products.
Can a small practice be recommended?
Yes. Size may affect the assessment of depth, but a smaller practice can be recommended when it demonstrates sufficient quality and position.
Is a submission mandatory?
No, but without one the directory will rely more heavily on public information and market knowledge.
How many referees should be provided?
The Legal 500 recommends as many as possible and offers approximately twenty per practice as a useful minimum guideline.
Must referees appear in the listed matters?
No. They should be able to comment legitimately on recent work performed by the practice.
Can a ranking be guaranteed?
No. The outcome depends on editorial judgment, evidence, feedback and comparison with the market.
Must the official template be used?
Yes. Documents should be prepared and uploaded using the formats and portal specified by The Legal 500.
When should preparation begin?
Information should be captured throughout the year, with final drafting beginning well before the official deadline.
Turn your practice’s experience into clear and competitive evidence
Legal Advanta helps law firms prepare submissions, organize matters, coordinate referees, strengthen profiles and connect legal directories with a broader positioning strategy.
Prepare my Legal 500 strategyOfficial sources consulted
- The Legal 500 — Research Methodology
- The Legal 500 — Submission Information
- The Legal 500 — Frequently Asked Questions
- The Legal 500 — How Do You Rank Law Firms?
- The Legal 500 — How to Use the Portal
Calendars, templates, categories and requirements may change between editions. Firms should always verify the official information applicable to the relevant research cycle.
%402x.svg){kind=icon}
.svg)
.png){kind=logo}
.gif){kind=logo}
