Chambers USA submission deadlines are here, which means now is the time for law firms to get strategic. Your submission should be built around a clear narrative and supported by referees who can validate that story.
Start with the goal
Before drafting, firms should define what they are trying to accomplish.
Are you trying to maintain a current ranking? Improve a band? Get a new practice area ranked? Secure an individual lawyer ranking? Build visibility for the next generation of partners?
Each goal requires a slightly different strategy.
For example, a firm trying to improve an existing practice ranking may need to show that its work has become more sophisticated, higher value, or more prominent in the market. A firm seeking a new individual lawyer ranking may need to focus more heavily on that lawyer’s specific role in major matters, their client relationships, and market visibility.
Set your goals first and draft your submissions with those goals in mind.
Choose matters that demonstrate value and impact
A common mistake is writing work highlights as fact sheets rather than using them to demonstrate value.
The strongest matters show client significance, high stakes, market impact, novelty, or particular sophistication in the relevant practice area.
When writing up your matters, make sure to explain:
- The legal issues involved
- The value or impact of the outcome
- Why the client, industry, or matter was notable
- Any cross-border, multi-party, or high-pressure dynamics
- The trial, appellate, regulatory, transactional, or strategic significance
- The firm’s specific role in achieving the result
Writing matters this way helps the researcher understand not just what happened, but why it mattered.
For individual rankings: make the lawyer’s role clear
On major matters, it is not enough to say that the firm represented the client. Chambers needs to understand what the lawyer personally did.
For each key matter, make sure you’ve articulated:
- Was the lawyer lead counsel?
- Did the lawyer argue a motion, lead negotiations, try the case, structure the deal, or develop the strategy?
- Was the lawyer responsible for a key result?
- Can the referee speak directly to that lawyer’s contribution?
If the submission is vague about individual contribution, it becomes harder for Chambers to evaluate the lawyer’s personal standing.
Build the referee list around the submission narrative
Referees are the most important part of the Chambers process.
The best referees are clients who can validate the exact story the submission is telling. If the submission emphasizes high-stakes litigation, the referees should be able to speak to the firm’s litigation strategy, responsiveness, and results. If the submission emphasizes industry expertise, the referees should be able to explain how the firm understands their business.
A strong referee should be able to speak to:
- The quality of the firm’s work
- The sophistication of the matter
- The lawyer’s specific role
- The client experience
- Results or value delivered
- Bonus points: How the firm compares to others in the market
Misalignment between the written submission and referee feedback can weaken the submission. The work highlights and the referee list should both reinforce the same narrative.
Do not assume the “biggest name” is the best referee
The best referee is not always the CEO, general counsel, or highest-ranking contact.
The best referee is the person who knows the work, understands the lawyer’s role, and is likely to respond thoughtfully when contacted by Chambers.
In many cases, that may be an in-house lawyer, deputy GC, business executive, board member, co-counsel, or another client contact who worked closely with the firm.
A senior title is helpful only if the person can provide specific, credible feedback.
Confirm willingness before listing referees
Before listing a client as a referee, the lawyer should ask for permission.
This gives the client notice, increases the likelihood that they will respond, and creates an opportunity to confirm that the relationship is strong enough to support positive feedback.
The request should be simple and clarify that Chambers is not asking for confidential details about their matters but that Chambers is looking for feedback on the client’s experience with the firm and the lawyer.
The lawyer can also offer to send a reminder when the research period begins so the client knows to watch for the email.
The bottom line
Chambers rankings rarely change overnight. A band improvement or new individual ranking often reflects sustained progress over multiple years.
The best submissions are built on well-written matters, specific lawyer contributions, and aligned referee feedback. Firms that prepare early, manage referee relationships thoughtfully, and use each ranking cycle to learn and improve are better positioned to strengthen their Chambers results over time.