And… time’s up! The submission process for The Legal 500’s Asia Pacific 2020 guide is now closed. To all firms across the 25 jurisdictions we cover, thank you for contributing to this year’s research.

Over the last few weeks, a number of firms have sought clarification over the factors we consider when rankings practices and individuals. For the avoidance of doubt, the factors we consider are, first and foremost, relevant work highlights. Here we look at the past 12 months but also the recent historical track record of a practice (typically three to five years) for context and to evidence consistency. We assess the scope, sophistication, technical ability, practical achievements, innovation, and representation of cutting-edge market leaders.

The secondary factors we look at are: breadth of practice area coverage; depth and experience of team/changes to the group; client and other referee feedback; significant market/economic developments; ancillary services; your firm benchmarked against the competition.

Although credible recent work highlights is the most important factor, this article looks at the importance placed on referees as a secondary consideration when it comes to our decision-making and offers a few tips on how to make the most of client feedback.

Know your referees

Every year we contact more than 300,000 referees globally. These include in-house counsel (GCs and junior counsel), managing directors, chief executives, external counsel such as barristers, and even other law firms referring clients and work to other jurisdictions.

With so much client and market feedback flooding our researchers’ inboxes with both positive and negative assessments of your practices and individual lawyers, it is important firms don’t underestimate referee opinion.

Referees really do provide us with a warts-and-all assessment of your capabilities and negative feedback is certainly considered in the rankings. It also suggests a lack of awareness and judgement on your part if you put forward a client who, in emails to us, accuses you of providing ‘the wrong legal advice’, are guilty of ‘unethical conduct’, or ‘breaches of confidence’. In short, make sure you really know your referees.

How to improve response rates

Assuming your clients will provide nothing but a glowing endorsement of your practice, how can you ensure a weight of response to tip the scales in your favour during the research?

First, provide us with as many referees as possible! There is no limit to how many referees a firm can put forward, but we recommend each practice aims to provide us with 20 referees.

Next, bearing in mind senior figures such as GCs and CEOs are generally busier, put forward referees who are more likely to respond to us. Sometimes firms focus too heavily on referees likely to impress us, but we find it more effective to measure the number of responses, and what they actually say, rather than the profile/seniority of those responding.

When selecting referees, think about those who have a good relationship with the firm as a whole, rather than just one partner. That way, they can also provide feedback on the firm’s overall service, as well as other lawyers they have had dealings with.

Put forward referees who have worked with the firm in the past year, or at the most, two years. Please note, however, that referees who worked with the firm over two years ago will be less inclined to respond and greater weight will be placed on more recent references.

Finally, make referees aware we will be contacting them via email. It is worth them adding ‘legal500.com’ to their safe senders’ list to get around strict spam filters.

Unconscious bias

Finally, over the last year, we have been working hard to stop unconsciously biased quotes making it into our guides. Obviously, our researchers are at the mercy of your referees’ feedback; we do not put words in clients’ mouths, nor will we make up quotes where none exist. However, where we can use genuine quotes that are more representative of an individual lawyer’s abilities and skills, then we will endeavour to do so.

That means that women practitioners should not be solely described as ‘conscientious’, ‘thorough’, ‘thoughtful’, ‘a very nice person’, ‘well organised’, ‘responsive’, ‘easy to work with’, ‘pleasant’, or ‘extremely nice’, while their male counterparts are ‘doyens’, ‘assertive’, ‘phenomenal advocates’, with ‘outstanding intellects’, ‘razor-sharp minds’, or just ‘frighteningly clever’.

Still, we need your help to do this. If you are asked to act as a referee during the upcoming research, then please, give us more than monosyllabic responses; try to be aware of any unconscious bias you may have; and, most important of all, provide an honest appraisal of a lawyer’s key skills and qualities. What really sets them apart and why can you rely on them?

If in doubt, think about how you would want your clients or peers to describe you. Would you want them just commenting on how ‘pleasant’ it is to work with you, or would you expect them to make reference to your ‘unrivalled’ legal skills? I suspect you would not want them to describe you – be it positive or negative – based upon an unconscious gender bias. Remember, this is your opportunity to help us highlight the best and brightest the global legal profession has to offer. Good luck, and we look forward to speaking with you, and your referees, during the research period.

Last month, I spent some time in Lisbon to attend the GC Powerlist Iberia (Portugal) and meet with several law firms ahead of The Legal 500’s next EMEA guide.

For the converted, I don’t need to proselytise on what a fantastic city Portugal’s capital is, something that has been recognised by the many multinational companies that have established a base there (and elsewhere in Portugal) over recent years, lured by the various business-friendly initiatives introduced since the 2008 financial crisis. Not to mention the ultra-high-net-worth individuals who have been drawn to the country due to Portugal’s favourable Golden Visa programme, which has proven popular with luminaries from the French film industry as well as high-profile Brazilian entrepreneurs and a number of Chinese investors. And that’s before you take into consideration the many tourists that flock to the city to enjoy the weather, food, and the sights (the castle is well worth the trek).

Indeed, the increasing interest in the nation’s sporting endeavours over the years has transformed the country’s hospitality industry with a number of new hotels springing up in the city, including the Pestana CR7 hotel, which is a partnership between the hotel chain and Portugal’s favourite son and, arguably, its most famous export, Cristiano Ronaldo.

Incidentally, my time in Portugal coincided with the culmination of the inaugural Nations League, which saw a Ronaldo-captained Portugal beat the Dutch in the final.

At this point, I’d like to make clear that the introduction of football isn’t purely tangential (or self-indulgent by the writer). In fact, football, or more broadly sport, came up frequently in my meetings with firms. For clarification’s sake, I’d like to note that it wasn’t due to any instigation on my part, even though my non-working hours were spent consuming as much of the French Open, Nations League, NBA finals and general off-season transfer speculation as I could absorb. No, it appears that the business of sport is providing plenty of fodder for law firms. This wasn’t just confined to football either, with judo and surfing also providing fertile ground for firms to get to grip with in order to ride the waves in these areas with fees getting ‘hi-ya’ (this latter statement is unsubstantiated).

One other hot topic was the concept of ‘cherrypicking’, i.e. assembling a group of superstar lawyers that are, crucially, drawn from different firms to form a new team, much like the ‘All-star’ line-up. During discussions at the GC Powerlist, it became apparent some in-house counsel were increasingly pondering whether this was a viable model to use for bet-the-company-type matters. Interestingly, private practice lawyers made the very valid point that, for GCs increasingly operating under significant cost constraints and ever-tighter budgets, this arrangement is not workable on a day-to-day basis.

The practice of cherrypicking in Portugal has been attributed to the rise of a more sophisticated in-house counsel over the last decade (something that isn’t unique to Portugal alone). GCs and other in-house lawyers have increasingly made the move from private practice positions with some of the largest firms in Portugal to corporate counsel roles, compared to starting their careers in in-house positions as was the case in bygone years. As a consequence, in-house counsel have informed views and in-depth knowledge of the key players in a small market. Not just this, but the evolution of the GC role has meant it is no longer the end goal, with individuals striving for CEO positions and other senior board roles.

Another interesting theme that emerged was the changing nature of legal networking. Increasingly pressed for time and keen to squeeze some exercise into their day, lawyers are (apparently!), in an effort to maximise face time, now joining their clients for lunchtime workouts. Spinning clearly equates to winning, and not just in the fitness stakes. Quite how much gets discussed when you’re panting for breath and trying to gulp down air is questionable, but those who get a sweat on together appear to build a stronger bond. It is certainly at a slightly higher octane level than doing business on the golf course. Despite this enthusiasm for clean living though, it didn’t appear to put too many people off toasting their success at the GC Powerlist event held at the Palácio do Governador hotel.

So, ultimately, my takeaways from the trip were the increasing importance of sport to the Portuguese legal landscape. Whether that be joint ventures with high-profile athletes, needing to know your yellow belt from your black belt, or just getting your kicks on to keep in touching distance with clients, for now, it looks like this is something Portuguese firms are going to have to run with.

Right now The Legal 500’s UK research team are putting the final touches to their rankings. I’m hopeful that when we launch the 2020 UK Solicitors guide later this autumn it will show that we have achieved one of the aims I set out when I joined – to boost diversity, and, in particular, increase the number of women listed as leading lawyers.

Given all of the attention on women in law across the industry, by and large our plan has been very positively received by firms and partners alike. Many have contacted me direct with suggestions of talented female lawyers overlooked in past editions. And, during the research phase, most partners interviewed have gone out of their way to help our researchers – putting forward skilled colleagues (and indeed rivals) who deserve to at least be considered for our leading individual lists but who have – to date – been excluded because their names haven’t been mentioned as frequently as men’s.

This has been no deliberate exclusion by our researchers or those they interviewed for past guides. Rather, the comparatively small number of women ranked suggests they have fallen victim to unconscious bias. The male lawyers who have historically dominated both commercial law and, as a consequence, our individual rankings have been more likely to put forward the names of other already well-known men, than less well-known (but no less talented) women.

Firms’ willingness to help us redress the balance reflects both their desire to right a very outdated wrong and a real business need – today’s clients demand that their law firms are demonstrating diversity within their ranks.

In this environment, where big companies want to see evenly balanced pitch and transaction teams, building the profile of the most talented lawyers, irrespective of gender or race, is a business imperative for firms. So surely, it can only be a good thing if The Legal 500 reflects this new market and firms can point to our rankings to demonstrate the recognition of their lawyers, male and female? Or so I thought.

Disappointingly though it has emerged during the course of the research process that not all partners agree with us. Some have contacted us to raise concerns that our plans to increase the number of women listed could jeopardise the position of men.

Their fear is that if we add women, then deserving men will unfairly lose their positions as a consequence.

Others have gone further still and openly criticised researchers in interviews, stating that it is ‘ridiculous’ for The Legal 500 to actively seek the names of talented female and minority lawyers when we should be looking only for the best lawyers, whatever their gender or skin colour.

While the numbers making these criticisms are small, the profile and seniority of some of the firms and individuals involved suggests we need to answer their concerns.

To clarify our position then: our intention is not to add women at the expense of men – operating a one in, one out policy that means that for every female addition a man will lose his place.

Nor does it mean that we plan to add women simply to make up the numbers, lowering the bar so that it requires less talent for a woman to make our lists than a man.

Every single name on our individual lists – whether that’s well-established senior partners, next generation partners or rising star associates – will continue to win their places on merit. They will all need to demonstrate a presence on high profile matters, a strong client base and the respect of both their private practice peers and their in-house clients.

In the short-medium term this might mean that our lists get longer as we increase the number of women on them.

Over time we would also hope that we can increase the representation of other minority lawyers in our rankings. At present, however, there is simply not a big enough pool of black and minority lawyers working at a senior level within firms for us to choose from, so this goal may take a bit longer. Recent research from sister title Legal Business found that across the top 12 firms in the LB100 only 7% of UK partners identify as BAME, highlighting the scale of the problem.

So please don’t fear or ridicule our intention. As I write this, a host of firms are in the process of signing up to the Law Society’s Women in Law Pledge, which sees them promise to support the progression of women into senior roles by focusing on retention and promotion and set clear targets around gender equality and diversity. Just for reference the latest stats from Thomson Reuters show women make up just over 20% of firms’ partnerships compared with 60% of trainees.

Increasing the number of women and other minority lawyers working at a senior level in law firms is a priority for the industry as a whole – businesses suffer without diversity of all forms. All The Legal 500 wants to do is play a small part by making sure that where deserving women and minority lawyers exist (which quite clearly they do) we are including them in our rankings, on the basis of merit and merit alone. Our challenge historically has always been that we reflect what the market tells us – if we don’t hear women’s names, we can’t include them. Our current push is just us trying to rectify this problem.