It’s a scene that repeats itself in almost every legal practice in the region: a partner spends years building a solid reputation in their field. Clients seek them out, references speak volumes, and when the time comes to apply for a board like Chambers and Partners, the entire weight of the candidacy falls, once again, on that same person. The problem arises later, almost always too late: that partner retires, changes firms, or simply becomes less active, and the ranking that was so painstakingly built vanishes with them.
Why Chambers can rank the team and not the partner, or vice versa
One fact that few firms fully grasp is that Chambers can rank an entire department without necessarily ranking the individual partner who leads it, and vice versa. This isn’t a mistake on the part of the board, but rather a direct consequence of how the evidence is compiled. If client feedback and submitted matters are concentrated on a single person, the board may consider that there isn’t enough evidence of what they call “team depth,” and that’s where the risk begins.
Team depth is not a formal detail
Team depth, simply put, means that the ability to advise on complex matters doesn’t depend on a single person. This is demonstrated by senior associates who also have direct contact with clients, feedback that mentions more than one lawyer on the team, and a clear succession plan: someone who, when the senior partner retires or moves to another firm, can maintain the relationship and the level of work. Without this, the board has every right to do what it’s already doing with increasing frequency: maintain the partner’s individual ranking and demote the team, even after they’ve held that position for several consecutive terms.
What to do with a team of ten partners (and what not to do)
The most common mistake when a practice has multiple partners is trying to showcase them all at once: one case from each partner, a long list of referrals spread across many people. The result is almost always the opposite of what’s intended. Feedback is diluted, each partner ends up with evidence of only one or two cases, and the directory has nothing to rank anyone individually, even if the team as a whole has had a solid year.
The firm’s brand is also at stake
There is another, less discussed, reason why it’s worth prioritizing team rankings over individual ones: when a partner leaves the firm, their personal ranking usually goes with them to their new position. The team ranking, however, stays behind. Therefore, whenever a firm develops its nomination strategy focused solely on highlighting its most senior partner, it’s making a decision that may benefit that individual, but leaves the firm vulnerable should that person ever leave.
Building team depth takes time and, above all, requires an active decision: not to nominate everyone equally, but to invest in evidence for those who can truly sustain the practice in the future.
By: María Sol Rubio, partner at Gericó Associates
