Are legal directories valuable sources of information to corporate counsel or a waste of lawyers' time and money? Michelle Madsen canvassed the views of general counsel and found clients reluctant to give credit

Legal directories, those weighty tomes ranking lawyers in league tables according to jurisdiction and practice area, have long been an established feature on the bookshelves of general counsel.

Yet while many general counsel are hesitant to confirm that they are useful, the growth of UK-based directories such as Chambers and Partners and the Legal 500 and US directory Lawdragon during the past decade is testimony to the fact that they have filled a gap in the market. But are they, as some corporate counsel argue, a self-perpetuating marketing-arena for law firms, or a useful tool for clients?

It is a question that has been raised by the directories themselves. Chambers last year produced a report entitled 'Do clients use Chambers?' with testimonials from a raft of high-profile US general counsel, including former Oracle legal chief Dan Cooperman (now general counsel at Apple) and Viacom general counsel Mark Morril.

UK corporate counsel, however, have so far been more reticent than their US counterparts to give credit to directories.

Shell London legal head Richard Wiseman argues that competent, well-connected general counsel should not need to use directories.

"I use them very, very rarely," he says. "I have the luxury of being able to consult with colleagues on the question of which outside counsel to speak to. I am horrified by the amount of money that firms spend on preparing submissions to these directories. I cannot imagine who they think is naive enough to use a directory in any other way than they would use the Yellow Pages."

Scottish & Newcastle general counsel Peter Kennerley says the amount of work demanded of firms by directories in terms of submissions could prove a distraction to actual legal work. He comments: "When I worked for a law firm we spent ages preparing submissions and I suspect that there is a disproportionate amount of effort that goes into preparing these."

However, Kennerley admits that he does not know much about the methodology behind the rankings presented by the directories. "I am not really bothered about how they go about ranking firms, probably because they represent a reasonably accurate view of the market," he says.

Chambers, which launched in 1990, compiles information about firms and individual lawyers through telephone interviews conducted by a stable of around 100 researchers, all boasting impressive academics, though often with little prior knowledge of the legal market. Firms and partners are then ranked on the strength of comments made about them by both clients and peers.

UK directories, which are released annually to much fanfare, have also tapped into the lucrative US market. While Legal 500 made an abortive early bid to launch a guide in the US in the 1990s, Chambers was the first to crack the previously closed market with its 2002 launch of Chambers USA Guide. Unlike the guides that had circulated in the US previously, law firms do not have to pay to be ranked in Chambers, but those who want their details listed do.

Since launching its US guide, Chambers has picked up the pace and branched out into new markets at a rapid rate, launching guides covering European, Asian and Global legal markets. Publication of a guide to Latin America is also on the horizon, and it is the ease of access that a directory guarantees to an unknown market which general counsel agree can be indispensable.

Schroders in-house lawyer Nick Evans says: "I do not use them on a day-to-day basis but they are useful as a reference point if you are looking at going into a new market; they are an important source of information."

Legal directories are not perfect: the current emphasis placed on law firm submissions demonstrates an indirect bias towards large firms with a substantial marketing team and the time and resource to put into pulling together an exhaustive picture of both the firms' practice and that of individual partners.

General counsel also argue, with some justification, that the rankings often seem too static. Deborah Prince, general counsel at consumer watchdog Which?, says that once lawyers reach a certain tier they seem to stay there, regardless of the quantity or quality of work they have done over the last 12 months.

"From my experience you see the same names in directories over and over again and some of them are not that great," she says. "It is a self-perpetuating market, but I agree they can be quite useful if you are completely stuck N it is better than going in cold."

A related issue is that some believe directories have an upward bias, since their value for law firms in terms of marketing comes from positive comments. In that context, directories' language can also be easy to parody, telling readers on a regular basis that law firms are stuffed to the brim with "tough cookies", "commercial operators" and "technically-astute" lawyers.

Michael Butcher, legal director at utilities giant Veolia Water, argues that firms using directories as a marketing tool aimed at clients have a lot to learn.

"Firms do not understand how to market to the in-house community," he says. "Directories are a good example of this, although I agree that there is an element of them having to do it – if one firm does it, others follow. I use the personal contacts I have but sometimes use directories to check for conflicts."

Yet the irony is that few clients argue that major directories do not fairly accurately reflect general perceptions of the quality of individual teams, which would seem to be the most relevant issue in assessing their worth.

Perhaps it is not surprising that clients are quick to play down how useful legal directories can be to them. Any chief executive or chief financial officer with access to a fully comprehensive guide to a legal market could quickly undermine one of the chief roles of a general counsel – the selection of outside counsel.

In a world where cost concerns and procurement professionals play an increasingly large role in the appointment of outside counsel, legal directories which give a reasonably accurate view of the market could empower people other than in-house lawyers to pick their counsel themselves.

It seems telling that US general counsel, who are renowned for having greater status, and are more likely to feel secure in their position than their European counterparts, seem less grudging in acknowledging the role of directories.

A cynic could even argue that in-house lawyers have an interest in maintaining the mystery around law, which directories threaten to pierce.

A sensible attitude to the directories would seem to be to regard them as a resource, a tool to be drawn upon and, compared with other sources of information, not as a substitute to personal contact or knowledge. As such, they need to be judged critically but, on balance, it would seem they have earned their place on the shelves of most general counsel.

Talkback: How useful are the legal directories? Click here to have your say.

More in-house news, comment and analysis