Partners question the rigour of legal directories with some arguing that they have little reach with clients, but is it sour grapes? Chambers is singled out as the best all-round. Emma Sadowski reports

Whether sour grapes or genuine grievance, commercial partners have grown increasingly doubtful regarding the influence and rigour of the major legal directories.

The latest Big Question survey found some partners questioning their accuracy and relevance, with 71% of respondents arguing that directories lacked rigour. In contrast, only 7% judged the major directories to be either 'excellent' or 'good' in terms of the quality of their research.

There were also doubts raised regarding directories' ability to reflect the reality of law firms' strength in different practice areas. Only 9% of the 203 partner respondents believed the major directories to be 'good' in this regard, while 20% viewed them as 'poor' and a significant 45% felt that they 'could be better'.

Perhaps inevitably, directories were judged to be more effective at accurately reflecting the market perception of firms' practices. On this criteria, 25% felt they were 'excellent' or 'good', while only 39% viewed them in negative terms.

Partners did, however, raise doubts regarding directories' influence on clients, with three out of four respondents arguing that clients make little use of directories. (In contrast, a parallel debate on Legal Week's LinkedIn group for in-house lawyers found general support for directories as a secondary source, although in-house lawyers give the most weight to personal recommendations).

Other criticisms levelled at directories included claims of lack of experience and high staff turnover of researchers.

However, there was also support for directories' roles in increasing transparency in the legal market, and some argued that such publications remain inherently vulnerable to criticism from law firms that are unhappy with their ranking.

"The research is getting better because the starting knowledge base grows each year. Every 12 months more of the jigsaw puzzle is filled in and the focus of the research can be more on the new developments. The directories have evolved significantly and have good momentum," says Taylor Wessing senior partner Martin Winter.

"They help third parties that do not have established relationships or are not so familiar with the market to fill in the knowledge gap. A firm can capitalise on the feedback, which is important for business development."

Norton Rose financial institutions chief James Bateson commented: "The directories are important and generally at the top end they get it right. However, there is a tendency in some areas to rank too many firms overall. They need to be more selective at the lower end, but it's not true for every practice area."

Berwin Leighton Paisner telecommunications, media and technology head Simon Harper said: "Directories do a good job of being a filter. Clients look at them when considering the bigger picture [and the changes in each practice area reflect the level of work going on in the market], though most clients would say that it is always best to combine them with a personal recommendation."

Whatever the wider doubts, it remains clear that two publications – Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 – enjoy the most support from the profession. Asked to judge the best all-round publication, 57% of respondents cited Chambers, while 35% backed Legal 500. This was substantially ahead of other products like the Practical Law Company or Martindale-Hubbell.

Barlow Lyde & Gilbert chief executive David Jabbari said: "The directories are pretty accurate. I don't think clients rely on them too much so that does invite a question about their prime purpose. Is it to provide reference information or to procure legal services? They've been around a long time now and there have been lots of developments in online procurement of legal services. Maybe it's time to ask afresh what general counsel are looking for."

Partners on directories

• 76% believe they are little used by clients
• 62% believe they are either 'excellent', 'good' or 'OK' at reflecting market perception
• 33% see research rigour as 'poor'; 39% that it 'could be better'
• 33% believe that too many firms are cited

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

Partner comments:

They play a valuable role:

• "If I was a client looking for a lawyer I would be much happier living in a world with, rather than without, directories. From the law firms' point of view, however, they are much more of a mixed blessing, and by no means always accurate."
• "The directories are important for the reputation of law firms. To their credit, the directories take a professional approach to the compilation – but (inevitably) being ranked by the directories based on limited hearsay is a disturbing process for lawyers (even if the outcome is favourable)."
• "The main people who use them are in-house counsel."
• "Clients don't use the directories as a first resource but do get comfort from checking a recommendation is in there. I give the same credence to the rankings as I give to the firms' own lists of expertise: they are based on sufficient fact to make them worth a quick look for a starter but can't be taken seriously without doing your own questioning of the firms."
• "Rather like legal awards events, getting a good write-up is a great motivator; getting not such a good write-up or, worse still, not being mentioned at all, means the researchers must be wrong."

They don't deliver:

• "The UK directories for the past half dozen or more years have slashed the staff budgets. Their researchers are first-year-out-of-uni kids who have a lifespan in the business of about nine months (one cycle of the directories). They usually have never heard of the practice area they are writing up and, because they are new every year, they have no perspective on practice developments. They do not really conduct research or pursue client references assiduously (anyway, what law firm will direct a researcher to an unhappy client for a reference?). They largely rely on the previous year's rankings. By the way, my practice is ranked in the top tier by both UK directories, so this is not sour grapes."
• "I'm not convinced they are worth all the time we put into submissions, but they are now an established fact of life we have to deal with. It would help if the researchers didn't constantly change so that we have to educate them all over again."
• "They are time-consuming for law firms. I query whether firms should put forward submissions at all or just be interviewed. An independent approach would be to ask corporates first about the firms they recommend."
• "The directories are usually at least two years off the pace on what is happening in the market. Sometimes they are hopelessly wrong – and stay so year in, year out."
• "The quality of research in my area this year by one directory in particular was appalling. If a client was busy, no attempt was made to call back. The reaction of clients was that the directory was simply wrong in relation to several firms and lawyers. They always lag the market badly."