Directories that withhold their method ask you to trust the result. Two things are set out here. First, the placement rule in force today: how each jurisdiction's top list is ordered from evidence the firms publish themselves. Second, the weighted composite planned for when a jurisdiction's evidence covers enough of the method. That composite is not yet applied to any firm, and no score or band is published.
Per jurisdiction, from the evidence its firms publish and the evidence read about them: recognitions from at least two independent publishers order first (read from the firm's own announcements, from The Legal 500's published tables and from permitted legal-press feeds; one score per publisher at the firm's best tier, lifted by how many practice areas that publisher's own tables rank the firm in, older results weighing less each year; more publishers first, then the reconciled figure), then the professional count stated on the firm's own site. Guide chapters are sponsored content and never place a firm. Only firms verified against their own website, or placed by two independent publishers, are eligible. Firms without evidence are not placed and not listed in the top list; a jurisdiction that places nobody is not ranked.
The method is therefore different in each jurisdiction, because what firms publish differs. Each jurisdiction's page states its own sentence; they are collected here.
Argentina is not ranked. 17 firms are on file and 15 are verified against their own websites, but none has published the evidence a position needs: recognitions from at least two independent publishers or a professional count on its own site. The list appears when that evidence does.
Australia is not ranked. 39 firms are on file and 20 are verified against their own websites, but none has published the evidence a position needs: recognitions from at least two independent publishers or a professional count on its own site. The list appears when that evidence does.
Brazil is not ranked. 50 firms are on file and 43 are verified against their own websites, but none has published the evidence a position needs: recognitions from at least two independent publishers or a professional count on its own site. The list appears when that evidence does.
Canada is not ranked. 34 firms are on file and 16 are verified against their own websites, but none has published the evidence a position needs: recognitions from at least two independent publishers or a professional count on its own site. The list appears when that evidence does.
In China, 10 of 135 verified firms are placed: 10 placed by recognitions the firm announced from at least two independent publishers, reconciled to one figure per publisher. Firms on file without either are listed in the directory below and are not ranked. No composite score is published for China.
France is not ranked. 117 firms are on file and 112 are verified against their own websites, but none has published the evidence a position needs: recognitions from at least two independent publishers or a professional count on its own site. The list appears when that evidence does.
Germany is not ranked. 15 firms are on file and 10 are verified against their own websites, but none has published the evidence a position needs: recognitions from at least two independent publishers or a professional count on its own site. The list appears when that evidence does.
In Hong Kong, 10 of 39 verified firms are placed: 10 placed by recognitions the firm announced from at least two independent publishers, reconciled to one figure per publisher. Firms on file without either are listed in the directory below and are not ranked. No composite score is published for Hong Kong.
In India, 10 of 102 verified firms are placed: 10 placed by recognitions the firm announced from at least two independent publishers, reconciled to one figure per publisher. Firms on file without either are listed in the directory below and are not ranked. No composite score is published for India.
In Indonesia, 10 of 37 verified firms are placed: 10 placed by recognitions the firm announced from at least two independent publishers, reconciled to one figure per publisher. Firms on file without either are listed in the directory below and are not ranked. No composite score is published for Indonesia.
Ireland is not ranked. 20 firms are on file and 18 are verified against their own websites, but none has published the evidence a position needs: recognitions from at least two independent publishers or a professional count on its own site. The list appears when that evidence does.
Israel is not ranked. 46 firms are on file and 33 are verified against their own websites, but none has published the evidence a position needs: recognitions from at least two independent publishers or a professional count on its own site. The list appears when that evidence does.
Italy is not ranked. 34 firms are on file and 29 are verified against their own websites, but none has published the evidence a position needs: recognitions from at least two independent publishers or a professional count on its own site. The list appears when that evidence does.
In Japan, 10 of 31 verified firms are placed: 10 placed by recognitions the firm announced from at least two independent publishers, reconciled to one figure per publisher. Firms on file without either are listed in the directory below and are not ranked. No composite score is published for Japan.
In Macao, 3 of 8 verified firms are placed: 3 placed by the professional count stated on the firm's own website. Firms on file without either are listed in the directory below and are not ranked. No composite score is published for Macao.
In Malaysia, 10 of 43 verified firms are placed: 10 placed by recognitions the firm announced from at least two independent publishers, reconciled to one figure per publisher. Firms on file without either are listed in the directory below and are not ranked. No composite score is published for Malaysia.
Mexico is not ranked. 57 firms are on file and 53 are verified against their own websites, but none has published the evidence a position needs: recognitions from at least two independent publishers or a professional count on its own site. The list appears when that evidence does.
Netherlands is not ranked. 64 firms are on file and 58 are verified against their own websites, but none has published the evidence a position needs: recognitions from at least two independent publishers or a professional count on its own site. The list appears when that evidence does.
Nigeria is not ranked. 7 firms are on file and 6 are verified against their own websites, but none has published the evidence a position needs: recognitions from at least two independent publishers or a professional count on its own site. The list appears when that evidence does.
In Philippines, 10 of 25 verified firms are placed: 10 placed by recognitions the firm announced from at least two independent publishers, reconciled to one figure per publisher. Firms on file without either are listed in the directory below and are not ranked. No composite score is published for Philippines.
Russia is not ranked. 2 firms are on file and 2 are verified against their own websites, but none has published the evidence a position needs: recognitions from at least two independent publishers or a professional count on its own site. The list appears when that evidence does.
Saudi Arabia is not ranked. 10 firms are on file and 10 are verified against their own websites, but none has published the evidence a position needs: recognitions from at least two independent publishers or a professional count on its own site. The list appears when that evidence does.
In Singapore, 10 of 48 verified firms are placed: 10 placed by recognitions the firm announced from at least two independent publishers, reconciled to one figure per publisher. Firms on file without either are listed in the directory below and are not ranked. No composite score is published for Singapore.
South Africa is not ranked. 9 firms are on file and 4 are verified against their own websites, but none has published the evidence a position needs: recognitions from at least two independent publishers or a professional count on its own site. The list appears when that evidence does.
In South Korea, 10 of 22 verified firms are placed: 10 placed by recognitions the firm announced from at least two independent publishers, reconciled to one figure per publisher. Firms on file without either are listed in the directory below and are not ranked. No composite score is published for South Korea.
Spain is not ranked. 23 firms are on file and 19 are verified against their own websites, but none has published the evidence a position needs: recognitions from at least two independent publishers or a professional count on its own site. The list appears when that evidence does.
Sweden is not ranked. 30 firms are on file and 28 are verified against their own websites, but none has published the evidence a position needs: recognitions from at least two independent publishers or a professional count on its own site. The list appears when that evidence does.
Switzerland is not ranked. 30 firms are on file and 30 are verified against their own websites, but none has published the evidence a position needs: recognitions from at least two independent publishers or a professional count on its own site. The list appears when that evidence does.
In Taiwan, 10 of 24 verified firms are placed: 4 placed by recognitions the firm announced from at least two independent publishers, reconciled to one figure per publisher; 6 placed by the professional count stated on the firm's own website, below the recognised firms. Firms on file without either are listed in the directory below and are not ranked. No composite score is published for Taiwan.
In Thailand, 10 of 28 verified firms are placed: 10 placed by recognitions the firm announced from at least two independent publishers, reconciled to one figure per publisher. Firms on file without either are listed in the directory below and are not ranked. No composite score is published for Thailand.
Türkiye is not ranked. 66 firms are on file and 65 are verified against their own websites, but none has published the evidence a position needs: recognitions from at least two independent publishers or a professional count on its own site. The list appears when that evidence does.
United Arab Emirates is not ranked. 24 firms are on file and 24 are verified against their own websites, but none has published the evidence a position needs: recognitions from at least two independent publishers or a professional count on its own site. The list appears when that evidence does.
United Kingdom is not ranked. 60 firms are on file and 0 are verified against their own websites, but none has published the evidence a position needs: recognitions from at least two independent publishers or a professional count on its own site. The list appears when that evidence does.
United States is not ranked. 12 firms are on file and 0 are verified against their own websites, but none has published the evidence a position needs: recognitions from at least two independent publishers or a professional count on its own site. The list appears when that evidence does.
In Vietnam, 10 of 42 verified firms are placed: 10 placed by recognitions the firm announced from at least two independent publishers, reconciled to one figure per publisher. Firms on file without either are listed in the directory below and are not ranked. No composite score is published for Vietnam.
Everything on the site comes from one of the sources below. Each row says where the data comes from, how it is read, how often, whether it counts towards a placement or is shown only, and the rules that keep it clean. Every record carries the page it was read from.
Not yet applied. These five signals and weights are the method that will produce a composite score once a jurisdiction's evidence covers at least half of their weight. Until then every position on this site rests on the rule in section I, and no composite, band or weighted rank is published for any firm.
| Signal | Weight |
|---|---|
| Directory consensus | 30% |
| Court record | 25% |
| Revenue per lawyer | 15% |
| Verified submissions | 18% |
| Peer and client review | 12% |
| Total | 100% |
Where existing directories agree, that agreement is evidence. Each placement is recorded as a dated, sourced observation — never a copy of the publisher's table — and firms are matched across directories by AI entity resolution. Disagreement between directories lowers the signal rather than averaging it away.
Sources · Published directory rankings · Awards and shortlists
Appearances and outcomes parsed from published judgments in official court sources. Weighted by forum seniority and matter complexity, not raw volume, so a high-turnover practice does not outrank a selective one. Commercial reporters' headnotes are excluded; only the judgment itself is read.
Sources · Official court portals · Bulk judgment data
Revenue divided by professional headcount, never revenue alone. Raw turnover measures size: in Korea, Lee & Ko leads on revenue while Yulchon, Yoon & Yang and Bae Kim & Lee lead once divided by lawyer count — a different answer, and the fairer one. Applied only where a jurisdiction has an official basis for the figure: in Korea, audited firms' financial statements filed with the Financial Supervisory Service's DART system and the VAT taxable-base declarations firms make to the National Tax Service; in the United Kingdom, the accounts LLPs file at Companies House. Elsewhere it is dormant until an official filing exists; a figure a firm states about itself is shown as the firm's own, never as official. League tables compiled by trade publishers are not used.
Sources · Official filings: DART and National Tax Service (KR), Companies House (UK) · Firm revenue disclosures · Bar association registries
Matters and deals submitted by the firm, counted only where an independent trace exists — a filing, a registry entry, or a referee who responded. Unverifiable submissions score zero rather than being taken on trust.
Sources · Firm submissions · Corporate registries · Referees
Structured responses from opposing counsel and in-house clients. Responses from a firm about itself, or from anyone with a disclosed commercial relationship to it, are discarded before scoring.
Sources · Peer surveys · Client interviews
Bands apply only to the composite in section II and are therefore not yet used.
| Band | Composite |
|---|---|
| Band 1 | 90 and above |
| Band 2 | 84 and above |
| Band 3 | Below 84 |
Recognition is read three ways: from the publisher's own published tables where the publisher's site permits it (Chambers and The Legal 500 today), each placement recorded as a dated observation with its source page rather than the table being reproduced; from what each firm announces on its own site; and from permitted legal-press feeds that report award, ranking and survey results. Each publisher counts once per firm, at its best tier, lifted by up to a quarter for the number of practice areas that publisher's own tables rank the firm in (saturating at twelve); announcements earn no breadth. A firm needs recognition from at least two independent publishers to be placed on it. Local legal media count as publishers in the same way as the international directories.
Recognition ages. A result is worth its full strength in the year it was given and the year after; from then on its weight halves every two years, down to a tenth, so a top band from 2018 no longer outweighs a second band from this year. A result with no stated year is treated as three years old.
South Korea
Japan
China
Hong Kong
Taiwan
Singapore
Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines
Indonesia
India
Macao
“Published tables” means the publisher’s own ranking pages are read where its site permits it, each placement recorded with its source page; “announcements” means the result is read where the firm reports it on its own site; “feed” means the outlet’s own permitted feed is read and the article is the source. Outlets that refuse the crawler are read through announcements only.
Published rankings are never edited in place. A change to this methodology produces a new version and a new ranking run; earlier runs stay readable, so any past placement can be reproduced from its inputs. Every placement carries an evidence trail linking it to the specific observations, judgments, and verified submissions that produced it.
A firm that disputes a placement, or an individual who wishes to correct or remove personal information, may write to us. Disputes are answered from the evidence trail rather than from editorial judgment.
| 2026.4 | 2026-11-11 | Direction agreed at the 11 November editorial meeting: one point system over domestic and global media (a domestic recognition reported by global media counts for both), scores standardised per market before firms are compared across markets, and three further planned signals, revenue from official filings, partner numbers and deals and cases on record. The world ranking table shows firm, jurisdiction, revenue where known, head count and the number of ranked practice areas. Guide chapters remain sponsored content and never a signal. Partner names are not shown. |
| 2026.3 | 2026-11-10 | Recognition read from permitted legal-press feeds and from The Legal 500's published tables as well as firms' announcements; local legal media listed per market as publishers; recency decay on every recognition; per-market lists order by number of publishers first; every data set the site reads is described with its use and safeguards. |
| 2026.2 | 2026-11-06 | Fifth signal, revenue per lawyer, added to the planned composite (live only where an official basis exists). Top lists are placed per jurisdiction on recognitions, then stated headcount, then guide chapters written; the composite stays unpublished until a jurisdiction's evidence coverage clears the threshold. |
| 2026.1 | 2026-01-01 | First published methodology. Four weighted signals, published exclusions, per-placement evidence trail. |
Bar associations, in-house counsel bodies and arbitral institutions, by market · 86
Japan Federation of Bar Associations
Japan In-house Lawyers Association
All China Lawyers Association
Law Society of Hong KongHong Kong Corporate Counsel Association
Taiwan Bar AssociationLaw Society of SingaporeSingapore Corporate Counsel AssociationBar Council of IndiaIndian Corporate Counsel AssociationLaw Society of England and WalesBar Council of England and WalesAmerican Bar AssociationAssociation of Corporate Counsel
Canadian Bar AssociationCanadian Corporate Counsel Association
Law Council of Australia
BundesrechtsanwaltskammerBundesverband der UnternehmensjuristenBUJ
Conseil national des barreaux
Association Française des Juristes d'EntrepriseOrdem dos Advogados do BrasilOAB
Law Society of South Africa
Nigerian Bar Association
Istanbul Bar AssociationIsrael Bar Associationלשכת עורכי הדיןKorean Commercial Arbitration Board대한상사중재원Japan Commercial Arbitration Association日本商事仲裁協会
China International Economic and Trade Arbitration CommissionHong Kong International Arbitration Centre香港國際仲裁中心Singapore International Arbitration Centre
Asian International Arbitration CentreThai Arbitration Instituteสถาบันอนุญาโตตุลาการ
Vietnam International Arbitration Centre
Indonesian National Board of Arbitration
Philippine Dispute Resolution Center
Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration
Chinese Arbitration Association, TaipeiLondon Court of International Arbitration
ICC International Court of ArbitrationGerman Arbitration InstituteDeutsche Institution für Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit
Swiss Arbitration Centre
Netherlands Arbitration Institute
Milan Chamber of ArbitrationMadrid International Arbitration CenterCentro Internacional de Arbitraje de Madrid
Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of CommerceIstanbul Arbitration Centreİstanbul Tahkim Merkezi
Dubai International Arbitration Centre
Saudi Center for Commercial ArbitrationIsraeli Institute of Commercial Arbitrationהמוסד הישראלי לבוררות עסקיתLagos Court of Arbitration
Arbitration Foundation of Southern Africa
American Arbitration Association, ICDRADR Institute of CanadaInstitut d'arbitrage et de médiation du Canada
Centro de Arbitraje de MéxicoCAM-CCBCCentro de Arbitragem e Mediação da Câmara de Comércio Brasil-Canadá
Australian Centre for International Commercial ArbitrationInternational Centre for Settlement of Investment DisputesPermanent Court of ArbitrationCour permanente d'arbitrageIntegrated Bar of the PhilippinesMalaysian BarMajlis Peguam Malaysia
Lawyers Council of ThailandVietnam Bar FederationLiên đoàn Luật sư Việt Nam
Indonesian Advocates AssociationMacau Lawyers Association澳門律師公會Law Society of IrelandDlí-Chumann na hÉireannGerman Bar AssociationDeutscher Anwaltverein
Paris BarConsiglio Nazionale ForenseConsejo General de la Abogacía Española
Netherlands BarSwiss Bar AssociationSchweizerischer Anwaltsverband
Swedish Bar AssociationUnion of Turkish Bar AssociationsTürkiye Barolar Birliği
Federal Chamber of Lawyers of the Russian Federation
Dubai Legal Affairs DepartmentSaudi Bar Associationالهيئة السعودية للمحامينLegal Practice Council of South Africa
Barra Mexicana, Colegio de AbogadosColegio Público de la Abogacía de la Capital Federal
International Bar Association
LAWASIA
Union Internationale des Avocats
Inter-Pacific Bar Association