How to Submit for IFLR1000 (And Actually Get Ranked)

[00:00:00] Shailyn Tirado: That our strongest submissions are not necessarily the longest or the most elaborate. Okay. They are the ones that are the most strategic. And so the firms that tend to perform best are the ones that understand how to present that work with clarity, with discipline, and especially with relevance. And so they focus on matters that best demonstrate the strength of their practices, but, and this is so key, they explain that significance rather than assume it

[00:00:28] Announcer: Welcome to Spill the Ink, a podcast by Reputation Ink, where we feature experts in growth and brand visibility for law firms and architecture, engineering, and construction firms. Now, let’s get started with the show

[00:00:45] Michelle Calcote King: Hi, everyone. I’m Michelle Calcote King. I’m your host, and I’m the principal and president of Reputation Inc. We’re a public relations and marketing agency for B2B professional services firms, including law firms. To learn more, go to rep-ink, that’s ink with a K, .com For financial and corporate law firms, IFLR1000 is one of the most established rankings programs in the world.

But if your firm participates or is thinking about it, you should know about significant changes happening with the process. Today, we’re talking to Shailyn Tirado, Global Head of Research at Legal Benchmarking Group, about what IFLR1000 is looking for, what a strong submission actually looks like, and what’s new this cycle.

So welcome to the show, Shailyn.

[00:01:31] Shailyn Tirado: Thank you so much for having me. I’m excited to be here.

[00:01:33] Michelle Calcote King: Yeah. Thanks for joining me. So if, uh, to set us up, if, you know, for listeners who may not be familiar with IFLR1000, can you give us a quick overview of what it, what it is, who it’s for, and kinda what makes it different from other, uh, rankings programs?

[00:01:48] Shailyn Tirado: Sure. Absolutely. So, uh, IFLR1000 is actually one of the specialist legal market, uh, research products that we have under the Legal Benchmarking Group’s portfolio, and it’s essentially really focused on financial and corporate law, and its purpose is really to help make the market make better-informed decisions.

And so with that, it serves essentially two core audiences. And first are buyers of legal services who want a credible comparative view of firms and lawyers in specific jurisdictions and practice areas. And then second, we have the law firms themselves. And, um, you know, many of those law firms use our research as, uh, really an independent benchmark of market position, momentum, and reputation.

And ultimately, what makes IFLR1000 really distinct is that it is not a broad generalist sort of repository or directory. Uh, in fact, we despise that terminology, but it is a highly focused, uh, product on financial and corporate work, project-related legal work. And essentially, that specialism allows the research to go deeper into the nuances of those markets.

And, um, you know, it, it differentiates itself by a methodology that combines what we call a three-pronged process. So it’s really rooted in deal evidence, client feedback, and market intelligence. And so the assessment that our analysts do is really deeply grounded in what firms are actually doing, um, and how they’re perceived by those clients, and how the work is viewed in the context of the wider legal market.

And ultimately, that combination gives what we create, which is the rankings, both credibility and that practical value. And one of the things that we’re really looking forward to is that now with IFLR1000 combining with a new premier brand that, uh, Legal Benchmarking Group recently acquired, which is known as The Lawyer, um, there’s a proposition that we have, and it’s becoming, uh, increasingly more powerful, sort of the combination of these two brands.

And the goal is because it’s gonna reflect the, the broader shift in how we deliver value to the market. Uh, historically, rankings products such as IFLR1000 have provided sort of a point-in-time benchmark at, at really the practice area and jurisdictional level, as well as certain industries. But in addition, you know, what the lawyer adds is going to be structured market intelligence, so really centered around news, expert commentary, uh, you know, data-rich analysis, insights that will really help firms n- uh, not just establish who is ranked, but also to know what is happening in the market right now and essentially more importantly, why it even matters, um, and why it matters to the– to their clients and their customers and institutional leaders around the world.

And so this is especially relevant in a market where, you know, elite firms are no longer competing sort of neatly within national boundaries or specific regions. Um, but ultimately we really wanna focus particularly on where this sort of transatlantic, uh, US-UK corridor, uh, which increasingly operates as sort of a single competitive area.

Uh, and so we’re really excited to explore that.

[00:04:41] Michelle Calcote King: Very cool. Thank you for that. Um, so, so that’s a huge change, but I, I also believe you guys have another change where you’re combining the rankings and the award submissions into a single process. Can you tell me about that?

[00:04:53] Shailyn Tirado: Yeah, absolutely. So, you know, that decision to combine the ranking submission and the award submission into a sort of a single process was really about aligning the process more closely with how firms sort of already present a lot of their strong, strong work.

And so in practice, many firms were preparing two separate but sort of overlapping narratives, uh, often built around the same deals and transactions, the same teams, the same sort of evidence of impact and innovation and, uh, sort of market significance. And so bringing those together really reduces a lot of unnecessary duplication.

It really makes the process a lot more efficient. It allows firms to take a more, uh, sort of strategic approach to how they present their, their market story and their position. And I’ll be really honest, you know, f- from what we’ve gathered from business development professionals across the globe, it has significantly reduced submission fatigue.

Mm-hmm. Uh, it also improves a lot of clarity internally at firms-

[00:05:46] Michelle Calcote King: Mm-hmm …

[00:05:46] Shailyn Tirado: uh, especially because firms can focus on one high quality submission per practice area rather than sort of splitting effort across parallel processes. And you know, the great thing is that this Uh, consolidation has not altered our core methodology.

And so the research still relies on the deal and transaction work, the client feedback, uh, peer market responses through interviews and surveys. And so what has changed is only the way firms engage with that process. And so again, the market response has been really, really positive, which is what we expected when we made this decision.

And, you know, particularly because firms, let’s be honest, they value anything that reduces administrative burden, right? And so while preserving the integrity of the work being done by their lawyers, um, so that’s something that we wanted to make available to them. And particularly, you know, we know we’re not the only ones in the market, and so in a crowded rankings and submissions environment, that kind of simplification is, uh, really meaningful.

And again, this broader evolution means firms are no longer engaging only with a r- a rankings outcome in als- in isolation by participating with IFLR1000. But now, again, with our combination with the lawyer, those same insights are able to produce practice, uh, level rankings, as well as more richer, more current intelligence about how law firms are performing, uh, investing and really, um, competing across key markets.

So, you know, we’re glad that it has been well-received by the market and, uh, year on year, we do hope to continue to make improvements to our process.

[00:07:13] Michelle Calcote King: Great. And tell me, let’s dive into the submission process it- itself. What makes an excellent one versus an average one? What are– Tell me about that

[00:07:23] Shailyn Tirado: Great question.

Um, we always like to put a lot of emphasis on best practices, particularly around how firms are submitting, uh, their casework, their deal work to us. And so there are three components that are, um, best understood as complementary rather than separate scoring buckets. And so, as I mentioned earlier, we have a three-pronged process to our research.

And so deal evidence through research questionnaires is really the crux or really the foundation. And, uh, ultimately that’s because it gives us the factual basis for assessing the nature of a firm’s work. So whether it’s complexity, uh, innovation of the deals, relevance of the work, uh, sophistication of the execution or, or the firm’s unique role in a, in a transaction, uh, you know, that remains critically important because, uh, the rankings need to reflect actual market activity.

The, the second bit is around client feedback, and so that adds a different dimension, and it helps us understand how that technical work translates into the client experience and the quality of the services received. And a lot of things that we capture in those– in that feedback is around, you know, responsiveness, judgment, uh, strength and level of confidence, uh, that clients place in, uh, the teams representing them.

And then that last bit is around peer and market insight, which provides really a broader context, and it helps us to test how a firm’s work is perceived within its, um, you know, within its jurisdiction and practice area, and whether it is seen as active and credible in the market at the present time and, and how that compares to other peers.

And so final assessments ultimately for ranking placements really come down to weighing those elements together. Mm-hmm. And, um, and so no single factor is sort of, um, is usually sufficient on its own. And so what matters is really the overall picture that they create when considered in combination through those three aspects.

[00:09:06] Michelle Calcote King: Where do some firms really miss the mark? I think you, you said that, um, to my producer, you said, uh, that the form asks about deal impact and that that can often be where firms, uh, maybe get, get, get something wrong.

[00:09:19] Shailyn Tirado: Yes, absolutely. And, and to be clear, you know, when I said firms miss the mark, what I really mean is that firms often describe, uh, the impact in very general terms.

Mm. And so they may say, for example, that a deal was significant or high value or headline-making, for example. But what they don’t do sometimes is they don’t explain why it mattered in a way that helps us assess its true, uh, market importance. Mm. And so for us, impact is recognized not simply by size or volume or even profile or even name recognition, which is o- often a misunderstanding, uh, of the parties involved, but what we’re looking for is really underlying, uh, significance of the matter within that specific practice area and jurisdiction.

And so, you know, that can mean a range of things, whether it’s novel legal or, or a financing structure, uh, a first-of-its-kind feature, um, unusual regulatory complexity, for example, um, execution in a, in a challenging market environment. Um, and ultimately all of these things really signal a broader shift in market behavior.

And so, in other words, what we’re looking for is evidence that the matter had meaning beyond being a large deal. Mm-hmm. And so the strongest submissions make that case quite clearly and succinctly. Um, and so ultimately they connect the facts of the transaction or the deal, uh, to the reason why it mattered.

And so they do that in a way that is, uh, specific to the market rather than relying on generic superlatives, for example.

[00:10:46] Michelle Calcote King: Yeah, that makes sense. Um, what about the client referee or the peer surveys, uh, should firms understand in order to, to take m- you know, most advantage of those, those, uh, aspects of the, uh, submission process?

[00:11:03] Shailyn Tirado: Yeah. So it’s, you know, not just specific to peer review surveys, but also our peer review interviews. Our interview process is such a critical component to what we do, uh, along with client referees, as you mentioned. And so while those add really critical real value, as I mentioned earlier, they are most effective when they are used to reinforce or underscore rather than replace the core written submission.

And so the submission itself should always do the heavy lifting, quite frankly. And that’s basically because it sets out the firm’s strongest work and the case for its market position, as well as gives us an opportunity for the, for that, um, for that level of detail that we’re looking for. And so for the team at IFLR 1000, because the form is riddled with details, it’s truly the law firm’s best shot to get in front of our teams, um, and a sort of the best first impression, if you will.

And so, uh, separately, peer review interviews and surveys, what they really do is help provide context around how a firm is regarded in the market by others who understand that competitive l- landscape, who are participating in that competitive landscape. Um, and ultimately, while client referees offer more direct evidence of that, um, sort of the service quality, the delivery, and the trust that’s built between the client and, and, um, you know, uh, law firm relationship.

And so in terms of weight, neither is a shortcut to a strong ranking outcome, so that, you know, we really wanna make that clear. But, um, you know, it’s, it’s, as I mentioned, it’s not a shortcut to the strong ranking outcome if the underlying submission is weak.

[00:12:33] Michelle Calcote King: Mm.

[00:12:35] Shailyn Tirado: All of those things can be highly influential when they support a really credible body of work.

[00:12:40] Michelle Calcote King: Right.

[00:12:41] Shailyn Tirado: Okay. And so, yeah, and so what we really wish that more firms, um, understood, and this is a message that we deliver constantly in terms of best practices, is that quality really matters far more than quantity. Mm-hmm. And so a carefully selected group of, uh, client referees, for example, who can speak specifically and, and, uh, recently, uh, about meaningful transactions and relevant transactions is significantly much more useful than just a long list of contacts with only limited exposure to the team’s work.

[00:13:10] Michelle Calcote King: Hmm. Yeah.

[00:13:10] Shailyn Tirado: So it’s really about the depth and the quality.

[00:13:12] Michelle Calcote King: Yeah. That makes sense. So I’d love to pick your brains about if you- if your team is collecting this market intelligence throughout all your research- Mm-hmm … um, I’d love to understand, are there trends you are seeing that kind of stand out, um, you know, where certain practice areas are growing or shifting?

[00:13:32] Shailyn Tirado: Yeah. So, you know, one of the clearest trends that we’re seeing is that ultimately legal markets are continuing to evolve, right? Mm-hmm. And, and that’s at different speeds, in different ways. And so admittedly, you know, with, with my global role from sort of a global perspective, there is no single global growth story.

Uh, however, in some jurisdictions, you know, activity remains strong in areas like financing, restructuring, uh, private capital, and sort of really broader regulatory-driven work. Uh, in others, we’re seeing, uh, more of a sophistication in areas linked to things like infrastructure, ene- energy transition, uh, digital assets is, is, is a major one, cross-border investment, uh, complex financing structures, and, uh, you know- Public reporting, which particularly it’s, it’s a lot of the coverage done by our editorial insights team, both on iflr.com as well as The Lawyer.

Uh, there is market movement as well in areas like banking and capital markets and M&A, and as I mentioned, the digital assets is really something that we’ve paid a lot of attention to over the last year or so, and that’s happening across multiple regions. And so all of this is really consistent with what we’re seeing throughout our broader research cycle.

And so, you know, just as importantly, we not only look at where, uh, volume is increasing, which I know is something I mentioned earlier, but at where the nature of the work is becoming more sophisticated. That’s really what we’re paying a lot of attention to, and that includes, as I mentioned, shifts in deal structures, uh, changing regulatory pressures, and the emergence of new areas of client demand.

That is absolutely something we have our finger on the pulse for as well. And those developments, you know, essentially they matter. And for us, it matters if it matters to the market. And so– and that’s ultimately because it helps us understand where markets are deepening, where firms are building sort of competitive strength and expanding their practices, and where our research attention may need to evolve to keep up with that in the market.

Mm. And so that’s really something that, uh, speaks directly to, as I mentioned earlier, that expansion with The Lawyer, because we’re not simply looking at it as a, as sort of geographic pockets of growth. We’re approaching it as a response to how the legal market actually is now operating.

[00:15:40] Michelle Calcote King: Mm.

[00:15:40] Shailyn Tirado: And so elite law firms are increasingly making, as we know, the strategic decisions, which is why we’re really focused on that transatlantic US-UK corridor rather than within simply domestic markets, whether it’s just New York or just London, which we still are offering that type of coverage, but we’re just sort of altering and expanding our perspective a bit and, uh, looking to operate as sort of a, uh, or look- looking to, I’m sorry, produce sort of a competitive marketplace for- Mm

how firms are operating across global practices, regional practices, et cetera. And so bringing those two brands together, IFLR1000 and The Lawyer, what it really does is that it’s really helping us reflect that reality more effectively. And so instead of offering a static view of who is at the top, you know, top ranked in one jurisdiction or, or, you know, for one particular calendar year, we can increasingly connect those rankings and benchmarking to the deeper question of what is driving that performance.

Is it how firms are winning work, how the market is shifting, and really where those opportunities are emerging? So we like to pay really close attention

[00:16:42] Michelle Calcote King: to that. So what did I, uh, not ask you that’s important for, uh, firms to understand to participate and succeed, um, in the process with you?

[00:16:55] Shailyn Tirado: Hmm. That’s a good question.

Um, you know, ultimately, we encourage firms to engage with us, whether it’s their first time, whether they are reputable in their respective practice areas and jurisdictions. But ultimately, what we want to deliver is that at a high level, we consider a number of different factors, which is, you know, m- the market maturity, the growing volume and sophistication of relevant work, uh, jurisdiction and regulatory developments.

And what we’re hearing through submissions, client feedback, and wider market intelligence is really that this, uh, varies at, at, at distinct levels, whether you’re a full service firm, a specialist firm, a boutique shop. And so we want to encourage firms of all sizes, of all particular strengths, whether it’s, uh, robust in nature or really specific and specialized.

We want to encourage them to participate in our research because that allows us to understand markets better and therefore expand our coverage better. And we want to make sure that we are really paying close attention to that.

[00:17:52] Michelle Calcote King: Yeah. That’s great. Well, that’s been very helpful. Um, is there any final thought you’d like to leave our listeners with?

[00:17:59] Shailyn Tirado: Ooh, a final thought. Um, if I were to leave listeners with one final thought, it would probably be that our strongest submissions are not necessarily the longest or the most elaborate- Okay … they are the ones that are the most strategic. And so the firms that tend to perform best are the ones that understand how to present that work with clarity, with discipline, and especially with relevance.

And so they focus on matters that best demonstrate the strength of their practices. But, and this is so key, they explain that significance rather than assume it. And I, I would probably say that they provide evidence that helps the research team sort of understand both the quality and the firm’s own understanding of that market.

And so in that sense, a strong submission is less about volume and more about that judgment. Um-

[00:18:42] Michelle Calcote King: And connecting those dots for- Exactly … the researchers.

[00:18:44] Shailyn Tirado: Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. And if ultimately, you know, if I were to frame that in one sentence, it would probably be, you know, IFLR1000 is combining deep benchmarking with the lawyers’ real-time market intelligence to give firms a clearer, more actionable view of where they stand and where the market is going.

And so, which is exactly the kind of perspective that firms need in a fast-moving, uh, global and highly competitive market. And so we would say, put your best foot forward and, uh, send us your best, and our team is prepared to assess and analyze that information.

[00:19:14] Michelle Calcote King: Well, that’s incredibly helpful. So we’ve been talking to Shailyn Tirado, Global Head of Research for Legal Benchmarking Group.

Thank you so much for your time.

[00:19:23] Shailyn Tirado: Thank you.

[00:19:28] Announcer: Thanks for listening to Spill the Ink, a podcast by Reputation Ink. We’ll see you again next time, and be sure to click subscribe to get future episodes.