Ahead of Chambers USA 2026, Chambers’ Kush Cheema and James Haggerty spoke to Tom Wicker about keeping pace with the legal sector and the latest technological developments.
Thanks, Kush and and James, for making time to speak with me during the busy lead-up to the launch of another edition of Chambers USA! What are some of the major changes we can expect in the 2026 guide?
This year we’ve doubled down on what we expect to be a keen focus on counter-cyclical practices over the coming years, with a number of new civil litigation tables – notably in product liability and in looking at leading plaintiff firms, including a focus on firms representing whistleblowers.
In a turbulent environment for global dealmaking, we’ve also introduced a National Security practice which highlights the leading practice groups handling the thornier aspects of international M&A, as well as taking a close look at the trend of ongoing consolidation in the private equity industry via a new Asset Management M&A table.
How do you keep Chambers USA relevant – and front-running – in an age of internet review sites and an increasing number of competitor publications?
It’s a mix of trust built over 30 years, confidence in our methodology, and constant attention to shifts in law firm operations, client sentiment, and the economic and geopolitical forces driving demand. That’s included, over recent years, adding new tables to address novel issues, independent surveys to the market to test things like NPS scores and client sentiment, and introducing a much more quant-driven research model to complement our qualitative review – which has led to some exciting new thought leadership.
How has Chambers responded to digital innovations like artificial intelligence (AI), both in terms of the content of the guide and the way the company operates?
We’re exploring AI as an operational tool – for translation/transliteration, streamlining editorial production, researching niche legal areas, and handling the large quantitative data sets our work now produces.
What we won’t do is use AI to replace our research process. The confidential conversations we have with firms and clients – and human judgment when comparing submissions – remains essential.
More broadly, we have over recent years been optimizing our website for both traditional SEO and AI search discoverability, to some pleasing results. More on that soon!
How does the Chambers methodology reflect what clients need?
We do our own independent, external research on hiring trends and counsel selection processes as well as simply asking clients in our interviews on how they came to choose a law firm.
We’ve seen demand shift sharply across both AmLaw and boutique firms. High-impact work is increasingly concentrated among a small group of global elite firms, while more commoditized work is moving in-house or to NewLaw providers. In response, firms have made significant operational changes.
As such, we’ve dived deep into middle market specialists and taken a close look at boutiques, as well as looking into the niche, diversified practice areas that the top firms are rolling out for when it matters, in an increasingly crowded market for services.
What role do submissions vs references play in deciding your rankings?
They’re both fundamentally key to the research process. We look comparatively at submissions to determine which firms are the counsel of choice for the most complex and important mandates in that area, and look to marry that up to client feedback attesting to why – in the most dynamic buyer’s market for services since the 2008 crash – specifically they engaged a law firm and how or whether that firm satisfied their requirements.
How would you counter a view that researchers rely more heavily on peer feedback than the content of submissions when making ranking decisions?
There are some instances where peer feedback is particularly useful. Attorneys in joint defense panels, those engaging in high-end strategic M&A or bankruptcy, and so on, can offer an additional, informed perspective on technical skill – particularly in areas where client feedback is limited, such as sensitive criminal matters or national security.
Ultimately, Chambers is a client’s guide. We take the top-shelf technical quality of the ranked law firms as a given, but we’re particularly interested in both soft skills involved in client handling. A client’s account of a law firm’s distinguishing factors, including depth of resource, commerciality, understanding of their business and their value – that’s not something we can glean from peer interviews.
Are there any developments or plans for Chambers either internally or in terms of the submission and referee processes of which law firms should be aware?
We’re looking closely at whether efficiency savings via some new technology rollout internally will allow us to re-examine the volume of references and how we contact them, though this is a longer-term project.
There are some other procedural updates in the works, benefiting from new technologies and work with industry partners, but these won’t be live in time for this year’s research. More on that in the future!
What can law firms expect from the upcoming research schedule in terms of notable new categories or significant changes to the guide?
There won’t be major changes to the process, though we have this year moved some deadlines around to alleviate the impact of combining Chambers deadlines and research with the Thanksgiving, Jewish and Christmas holidays. The list of changes can be found using this link.
There are also a number of new practice areas open for submission this year, as we attempt to harmonize our practice area coverage across states and keep up to date with novel practice areas. This can be found here.
If a firm has any concerns about the latest rankings, who should they contact and what information should they provide?
The broader Chambers USA team, beyond ourselves, is divided up by practice area, and their details can be found on this page. We would, however, point out that we have significant confidence in the defensibility of our rankings and changes are exceedingly rare, and that some more in-depth explanations reside in paid-for products and we can therefore only provide more generic feedback.
Is Chambers willing to meet with firms during research and, if so, when – and how – would be best to arrange such a meeting?
Of course, we now have senior research staff in New York and in Los Angeles as well as London, with frequent travel opportunities. We tend to meet with law firms to discuss longer-term strategic direction and significant updates in the dynamics of a certain practice area which we take back to the wider team in London. Just reach out!
That said, we appreciate the opportunity to speak to so many attorneys for informative conversations on their practice and the market each year. We vary interviews year to year across submitting firms to ensure different voices contribute to our understanding of the practice area and look to prioritize firms submitting for the first time or where our analysts have determined we have a particular interest or question to ask.
What are your top tips in terms of producing the best submission content and selecting the best references?
We could spend all day on this! We recently hosted a webinar on best practice, which is currently available on demand. You can sign up using this link.
If we were to pick one tip for submissions and one for references, it would be to tailor your submission to your own firm. We know that public-facing homepages need to demonstrate breadth to capture potential clients, but we’re keen to hear about what specifically distinguishes your firm versus the rest of the field. Does your White-Collar Criminal Defense practice have more former prosecutors than any other in the market? Does your IP practice feature particular strength in the pharma industry? Let us know what the defining features of your practice group is.
In terms of references, the best ones are those that can offer an informed view and have the time to speak with us. Feel free to refer Litigation Directors, Corporate Counsel, and so on, given that we can often have a discussion with them on the star rainmaker leading the engagement, the second chair trial lawyer, the up and comer who’s getting their first taste of depositions and the senior associate running the day to day.
While we greatly appreciate the conversations we have with GCs and CLOs, these are often more strategic in nature, whilst other parties in the legal department might have more time to speak and a more up-front view.
How important is securing a lawyer interview when it comes to improving a firm’s rankings?
Prioritizing our analyst time for client interviews, we do not have the capacity to speak to every firm and factor that into our decision-making process so an interview is appreciated by our team but not essential.
That said, we greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak to so many attorneys for informative conversations on their practice and the market each year. We vary interviews year to year across submitting firms to ensure different voices contribute to our understanding of the practice area and look to prioritize firms submitting for the first time or where our analysts have determined we have a particular interest or question to ask.
Great – and thanks again for your time!
Chambers USA 2026 is published on June 4. You will be able to find the new rankings here.
Posted in: Legal Directory Consulting, Q&A, Uncategorized