Beyond the Submission: What Actually Builds a Chambers Ranking

This piece began as an authentic human conversation between leading voices in legal marketing. We used AI to bring that conversation to you in written form.

Beyond the Submission: What Actually Builds a Chambers Ranking

For many law firms, the Chambers process can become concentrated around one moment on the calendar: the submission deadline. Marketing and business development teams collect matters, chase attorneys for information, refine language, coordinate approvals, and work toward a final document that represents months of effort.

But that document is only one piece of a much larger process.

As Jennifer Simpson Carr observes in this episode, “rankings are not created in a few weeks.” They reflect the work a practice has done, what clients and the market say about that work, and whether the story a firm presents can be supported as Chambers conducts its research. Simon Christian, Global Research Director at Chambers and Partners, reinforces that point by describing Chambers as an “evidence-based process” in which the submission is one source of information among several.

That distinction changes how law firm leaders should think about Chambers strategy. The question is not simply how to produce a stronger submission. It is about building a practice whose capabilities, client relationships, matters and market reputation consistently reinforce one another over time.

The conversation also raises a broader leadership issue: the firms that approach Chambers strategically are not necessarily treating rankings as an isolated marketing exercise. They are creating processes that can reveal information about their practices, talent, clients, and competitive position and then finding ways to use that information throughout the firm.

Why Is Chambers an Evidence Process Rather Than a Writing Competition?

A polished submission matters, but polish alone cannot establish the strength of a practice.

Simon explains that Chambers treats its research as an evidence-gathering exercise. The submission introduces information and claims about the practice, but researchers then test those claims through conversations with referees and broader market research.

As Simon puts it, firms can sometimes produce “really, really well written” submissions whose descriptions are not supported by what referees, clients, or the market say. When that happens, the writing does not solve the underlying problem.

For law firm leaders, that means the submission cannot be separated from the client experience and the practice’s reputation. If a firm describes itself as handling its clients’ most sophisticated work, the evidence gathered during research needs to support that characterization. If the firm wants to demonstrate strength in depth, the people speaking with Chambers need to have experienced that depth firsthand.

The strategic implication is significant. Chambers preparation should not begin with the question, How do we describe ourselves? It should begin with a more fundamental question: What can we credibly demonstrate?

That shift places evidence ahead of messaging.

What Makes a Submission Truly Distinctive?

Distinctiveness does not mean redesigning the Chambers template.

Simon is explicit that adding firm branding, changing the required format or creating a custom template can actually make the researcher’s job more difficult. Researchers review submissions repeatedly, and standardized formatting helps them locate the information they need efficiently.

The differentiation has to come from the substance.

Simon recommends that marketing and business development teams ask what genuinely distinguishes the practice from its market peers. Does it handle a particular type of work? Does it serve a distinctive client base? Is its practice weighted toward a particular kind of transaction or matter? What does the team consistently do that helps explain its position in the market?

The goal is not to construct a version of the practice that appears to fit an imagined formula for a particular ranking.

There is, Simon says, no “magic formula.” A firm should not try to determine an ideal number of regulatory matters versus transactional matters simply because it believes that combination will resemble a higher-ranked practice. Instead, the submission should accurately demonstrate what the practice actually does and provide its strongest evidence within the relevant Chambers category.

In other words, differentiation should come from what is distinctive about the practice, not from presentation tactics.

The strongest submissions also make sophisticated legal work understandable. Simon describes effective matter summaries as lively, interesting and written so an “educated non-specialist” can understand why the work matters.

His comparison is memorable: when explaining an important or precedent-setting matter, write more like a “broadsheet newspaper rather than a law review headnote.”

That does not mean simplifying the substance. It means communicating significance clearly enough that the researcher can quickly understand why a matter deserves attention.

Where Does AI Help and Where Can It Flatten the Story?

AI can support Chambers work, but Simon cautions against treating generated text as a finished product.

He identifies several areas where AI can be useful. It may help produce a first draft, refine language or assist with translation when English is not a writer’s first language. Those are practical applications of the technology within a marketing and business development workflow.

The risk comes when AI replaces the judgment required to make a submission specific to the firm.

Simon warns that AI can produce something “plausible” without necessarily producing something “particularly distinctive.” If a generated draft smooths away the characteristics that make a practice unusual or compelling, the efficiency gained during drafting may weaken the final submission.

For marketing and business development leaders, that reinforces the importance of human review. AI can assist with the mechanics of writing. It cannot replace the work of determining what differentiates the practice, which matters best demonstrate that distinction or whether the language accurately reflects what clients experience.

The leadership question is therefore not whether AI belongs in the process. It is how firms use AI without allowing efficiency to replace judgment.

Why Does a Year-Round Chambers Process Matter?

One of the clearest differences Simon sees between firms is whether Chambers is treated as an annual deadline or as a year-round process.

Firms with established processes tend to be better prepared. Matters have been gathered earlier. Partners have had time to participate. Reviews and approvals can happen before the deadline becomes urgent.

That preparation also protects consistency.

If matter collection begins only when the deadline approaches, a busy partner can become a missing piece of the submission. Their strongest work may be absent simply because there was not enough time to gather it. A year-round process reduces that dependency by capturing information closer to when the work occurs.

There is another advantage: the details are fresher.

When matter summaries are captured closer to the work itself, attorneys can more readily explain the context, importance and distinguishing characteristics of the matter. The firm is not reconstructing its strongest work months later under deadline pressure.

Simon describes the progression researchers ideally want to see as “consistency and improvement.” A strong practice should demonstrate continuity while also showing meaningful advancement, in ways such as more sophisticated matters, an evolving client base, or other evidence that the practice is progressing.

That creates a different objective for law firm leadership. Instead of asking how to make this year’s submission better than last year’s document, firms can ask how the evidence shows that the practice itself has progressed.

How Can Chambers Data Become Useful Beyond the Ranking?

A year-round process also generates information that can be valuable elsewhere within the firm.

Simon notes that some firms use the matter summaries and information gathered for Chambers in marketing campaigns, business development, internal reporting and talent development.

One example discussed in the episode involves examining the associates who appear on a department’s strongest matters. That information can prompt broader questions. Which associates are consistently working on significant matters? Are opportunities concentrated among the same people? Are other associates rarely appearing in the practice’s strongest work?

The Chambers process, therefore, creates an opportunity to examine the practice itself.

Rather than viewing matter collection as work performed exclusively for an external directory, firms can ask: What else can this information tell us?

The discussion extends to the Chambers Advantage Index and the growing demand among firms for research-led information about their markets, competitors, practices and talent. Simon describes leading firms as particularly “data hungry”, interested not only in external market information but in understanding themselves.

For leadership teams, the implication is that directory data can support a broader effort to understand the firm’s people, practices, and market position. The information gathered for one purpose can help firms better understand their people, practices and positioning.

Why Might Referee Strategy Deserve More Attention Than the Written Submission?

After a conversation focused heavily on submissions, Simon closes with athe idea that firms may be spending too much time on the document and not enough time thinking about their referees.

When Jennifer asks what firms can do now to build momentum for the next cycle, Simon points to referee selection as the activity with the greatest potential for return on investment.

The reason goes back to the episode’s central principle: evidence.

A firm can present a compelling narrative about its practice, but referees help Chambers determine whether that narrative reflects clients’ experience. If the submission describes high-end work while referees characterize the firm as primarily handling lower-value matters, the firm’s own evidence is working against its positioning.

Referee selection, therefore, needs to connect directly with the story the practice can credibly tell.

If the firm wants to demonstrate strength in depth, for example, a referee who has worked only with one senior partner provides limited evidence about the broader team. A client who has worked with the partner, associates and other members of the practice may be able to speak much more meaningfully about the depth of talent.

That does not mean choosing referees simply because firms expect positive comments. It means thinking strategically about who has actually experienced the qualities the firm wants Chambers to understand.

Simon’s closing recommendation is straightforward: “really think hard about your referee selection.”

And importantly, that work can begin long before the next submission deadline.

The Takeaway for Law Firm Leaders

A strong Chambers strategy begins by moving beyond the idea that rankings are primarily a writing exercise.

The submission matters, but it operates inside a larger evidence system. Distinctive matters, clear writing, consistent performance, credible referee feedback and market perception all contribute to the picture Chambers researchers are evaluating.

For managing partners, practice leaders and marketing and business development teams, the opportunity is to make the process more than an annual deadline. Capture information throughout the year. Understand what makes the practice genuinely distinctive. Use AI where it improves the process without allowing it to flatten that distinction. Examine the information being gathered for insights about clients, talent and the practice itself. And begin thinking about referees early enough that their experience genuinely supports the firm’s story.

When those elements reinforce one another, the submission becomes what it should be: not the strategy itself, but a clear expression of the evidence the firm has been building all year.

Resources

• Simon Christian, Global Research Director at Chambers and Partners: linkedin.com/in/simon-christian-0a3406123
• Chambers and Partners: https://chambers.com/
• Chambers High Net Worth Guide: https://chambers.com/legal-guide/high-net-worth-21  
• Chambers Advantage Index: https://chambers.com/thought-leadership
• Beyond the Submission: Why the Best Chambers Programs Are Built Year-Round, Furia Rubel Website: https://www.furiarubel.com/news-resources/beyond-the-submission-why-the-best-chambers-programs-are-built-year-round/
• Stop Asking AI to Write Your Chambers Submission, Furia Rubel Website: https://www.furiarubel.com/news-resources/stop-asking-ai-to-write-your-chambers-submission/
• Chambers USA Trends and Guidance from Kushraj Cheema, North American Research Director: https://www.furiarubel.com/podcasts/chambers-usa-trends-and-guidance-from-kushraj-cheema-north-american-research-director/
• How Law Firms Earn Trust in the AI Search Era, On Record PR: https://www.furiarubel.com/podcasts/how-law-firms-earn-trust-in-the-ai-search-era/
• Media Relations in the Age of GEO, On Record PR: https://www.furiarubel.com/podcasts/media-relations-in-the-age-of-geo/
• Why Law Firm Growth Now Depends on True Integration: A Passle CMO Series Live Recap, On Record PR: https://www.furiarubel.com/podcasts/why-law-firm-growth-now-depends-on-true-integration-a-passle-cmo-series-live-recap/