The firm had previously submitted to the directories yet failed to receive any recognition prior to engaging LDC. 

We began with a comprehensive review of their previous submission and determined that the firm was a realistic candidate for a ranking. To maximise their chances of success, we identified key errors and tactical considerations which needed to be rectified and implemented. These included:

• Ensuring the firm submitted a sufficient number of matters. The previous submission included only a handful of work examples, though we advised that to put their best foot forward, they should aim to include the full 20 permitted work examples.

• To achieve this, we referred the firm to the ‘Practice Area Definition’ on the Legal 500 website, which clarified that they could also include commercial contract matters in addition to the corporate transactions exhibited in its prior submission.

• We also advised the firm to remove several matters that, while impressive, would be classified by Legal 500 as Banking & Finance rather than Corporate/M&A and would therefore carry limited weighting.

• Even after these adjustments, the firm was unable to provide 20 matters. We therefore sought to demonstrate the breadth of their activity through other means. This included briefly referencing historical matters handled for the same client within their work highlight summaries and compiling a shortlist of standout historical transactions.

• Although the historical standouts fell outside the research period and could not be included as formal work highlights, we referenced them briefly in the feedback section to reinforce the firm’s longstanding reputation in high-end transactions. We believed this would help offset the fact that we were not exhibiting the full 20 recent matters.

• We also worked with the firm to address what we perceived to be a critical flaw with its workload. The firm was somewhat niche in that it specialised in acting for SMEs from continental Europe. While cross-border work is considered inherently more complex than purely domestic matters, leaning too heavily on this line of work meant that the practice would undoubtedly be deemed as narrower than its full-service ranked peers.

• As such, we discussed with the firm that, while their headline work was typically for international players, we suggested that they include some lesser matters for local and national clients. While these matters were not as impressive, with much lower deal values, we believed that the firm had already included enough high-end matters to pass the assessment of quality, it just needed to pass the assessment of breadth of service and expertise. 

• Our research into the firm’s domestic clients revealed that many operated on a nationwide scale, with headquarters spanning from London to Edinburgh. We ensured the submission provided a brief overview of these clients, tangibly demonstrating to the researcher that the firm leveraged both a strong national and international client base, as opposed to merely the latter.

• Given the firm’s predominantly international workload, we emphasised in the rankings feedback section that their transactions covered both inbound and outbound work across multiple industries, ensuring the full scope of their experience was appreciated in full.

• To maximise the ‘quality of work’ assessment, we collaborated with the firm to refine its work highlights, ensuring that the complexities of each matter were clearly articulated. This was particularly important for lower-value deals, which we believed may not compare favourably with those submitted by currently ranked firms.

• While not a core factor in directory rankings, the firm had garnered many awards for its work-life balance and diversity & inclusion initiatives. We highlighted these aspects to help distinguish them as doing business a little differently in a largely homogenous market.

• Finally, we assisted the firm in securing a research interview. As this was their first participation in the process, we conducted a preparation session, helping them craft optimal responses to the template Legal 500 questionnaire.