After recently exiting ILFS, I’ve had the rare luxury of stepping back and looking at the legal directory world with a bit of distance. ILFS was originally conceived as a broad consultancy helping independent law firms develop international business – cross border referrals, network positioning, BD strategy. We did some of that, but the demand for directory support quickly eclipsed everything else. Not because we pushed it, but because firms needed help and the process kept getting more demanding every year.
Before diving into what has changed, it’s worth remembering what the world looked like before directories. I’m old enough to recall the pre Chambers era, when clients had almost no reliable information about law firms. Martindale Hubbell was essentially a telephone directory – a list of names, not an assessment. For all their shortcomings, modern directories, although not perfect, have given clients a far more informed view of the market.
Are directories still relevant?
Yes – but not for the reasons many still assume. If you think directories are about generating direct referrals, you’re missing the point. Their real value lies in validation and reassurance. They are part of the due diligence layer of modern legal procurement: something GCs check when they’re already considering you, something procurement teams use to benchmark, something lateral hires look at and something international networks rely on to position member firms.
One thing that has changed significantly is how clients use directories. They are no longer discovery tools; they are risk mitigation tools. In house teams look for consistency, not surprises. A stable ranking is often more valuable than a spectacular one off result.
The real challenges of directory submissions
Anyone who has worked on submissions knows the pain points. A few stand out.
1. Time – the sheer volume of material
A single submission can easily consume 20-25 hours across BD, partners and associates. The process generates a huge amount of material very quickly. The risk is that all the time goes into leg work – gathering matters, chasing partners, formatting documents – leaving little room for strategic thinking. A structured approach saves time; an unstructured one, or including irrelevant material, adds significantly to the burden.
2. Referees
Referees are often the firm’s best clients, and they are contacted repeatedly across multiple practice areas. The feedback process is long, unpredictable and increasingly competitive. Firms frequently over use the same clients, which depresses response rates and frustrates the very people they most want to impress.
3. Getting lawyers – especially partners – to participate
Partners are often quick to complain when rankings disappoint, but many struggle to find time to contribute meaningfully to the submission. BD teams end up chasing, editing, rewriting and filling gaps. The irony is that the people most invested in the outcome are often the least available during the process.
4. Under use of the material created
Submissions generate high quality work highlights, profiles and sector insights. Yet most firms never reuse this material for pitches, proposals, website content or credentials. It’s a huge, missed opportunity.
What has actually changed in the last 5-10 years?
There’s a perception that the process has transformed. In reality, the picture is more nuanced.
1. The process itself hasn’t changed as much as people think
The forms look broadly similar to those from a decade ago, and the work is still labour intensive and dependent on partners providing information. What has changed is that directories now publish clearer scoring criteria. Chambers and Legal 500 have always assessed submissions against internal benchmarks, but they’ve become far more explicit about what they reward – outcomes, comparators, client impact and so on. The workload hasn’t reduced, but the expectations are now far more transparent.
2. Automation – surprisingly late to arrive
For years, the opportunity for automation was obvious. I even tried to develop a product myself several years ago but couldn’t find the technical support – and quickly realised how big an undertaking it really was. Only recently have firms started using proper tools for matter capture, content reuse, deadline management and template automation.
Directory submissions aren’t an isolated annual exercise. They sit on top of the same data and processes that underpin pitches, profiles and BD generally. AI and workflow tools lend themselves well to this because the process is rules based and structured. It’s no surprise automation is finally taking hold.
3. Rankings have matured
Once a practice has been researched for several years, rankings tend to stabilise. There are fewer dramatic moves up or down. Directories place more emphasis on sustained performance rather than one standout year. This has made it harder for firms to break into the top tiers – but also harder to fall out of them.
4. Directories have diversified
Chambers, Legal 500 and others now offer a range of paid products and tools – BD platforms, data dashboards, client insight products. Rankings are no longer the sole focus of their business models. This has changed the dynamics of how firms interact with directories and what they expect in return.
5. Rankings now influence internal politics as much as external perception
This is one of the biggest unspoken shifts. Rankings now feed into lateral partner negotiations, team moves, partner remuneration, succession planning and internal credibility. Directories have become internal currency, not just external marketing.
6. The rise of data as the differentiator
The firms that perform best are those with structured matter data. Those relying on partner memory or last minute scrambles are falling behind. Directories increasingly reward clarity, comparability and evidence – and penalise inconsistency. This is where modern experience management tools are quietly reshaping the landscape.
What comes next?
One thing that genuinely surprised me recently was hearing from a directory that they are not yet using AI to evaluate submissions. On the face of it, the process lends itself almost perfectly to automation: structured templates, rule-based scoring, repeatable criteria and large volumes of comparable data. It raises the interesting possibility that we may soon reach a point where directory submissions are largely written by AI and assessed by AI – with very few humans reading them at all. What I can’t decide is whether this matters, or is even a good thing.
Where does this leave firms?
Directories are not going away. The firms that succeed are those that treat submissions as a year round process, not a last minute scramble. Better internal processes, smarter use of the material created and the adoption of automation will define the next decade. The firms that continue to rely on heroic BD efforts in the final weeks will find it increasingly difficult to keep up.
Alex Holtum is a consultant at AKH Legal Consulting and a product ambassador for Klerq.
Email your news and story ideas to: [email protected]
