Legal 500 rankings are frequently used by law firms as evidence of expertise.
But what does a Legal 500 ranking actually mean?
And, perhaps more importantly for someone choosing a solicitor, what does it not tell you?
Legal directories can provide useful information about firms and legal teams. But they are only one source of information.
In my view, clients choosing a solicitor — particularly for serious litigation, divorce, financial remedy proceedings, child arrangements disputes or contentious probate — should look beyond directory badges.
They should examine the evidence.
That includes the individual solicitor’s qualifications, advocacy experience, actual cases, reported judgments, specialist experience and genuine client feedback.
Is Legal 500 an accreditation?
No. Legal 500 is a legal directory which researches and comparatively ranks firms, practices and lawyers.
It is not the regulator of solicitors in England and Wales.
It does not award professional qualifications such as Higher Rights of Audience.
And a Legal 500 ranking should not be confused with regulatory status or a professional accreditation.
Legal 500 itself describes its rankings as comparative assessments within particular jurisdictions and practice areas. (legal500.com)
That distinction matters.
A directory ranking is an editorial assessment.
A professional qualification is something different.
How are Legal 500 rankings decided?
Legal 500 publishes considerable information about its own methodology.
According to Legal 500, evidence used within its rankings can include:
written submissions from law firms;
track record and recent work;
interviews;
feedback from other lawyers and market participants;
client feedback and referee validation;
comparative market analysis; and
the editorial judgment of its researchers.
Legal 500 states that there is no single factor determining a ranking and that researchers assess the totality of the available evidence. (legal500.com)
Those are important qualifications when interpreting any ranking.
Law firms provide information about themselves
One aspect of the process which prospective clients may not appreciate is the importance of law firm submissions.
Legal 500 describes law-firm submissions as an important part of the editorial and ranking process.
Those submissions provide detailed information about the firm’s strengths, work, expertise and team experience. (legal500.com)
Legal 500 also invites firms to provide client referee lists so that feedback can be obtained as part of its research. (legal500.com)
There is nothing inherently wrong with that methodology.
Indeed, confidential information supplied by firms may allow researchers to learn about substantial work which is not publicly reported.
But consumers should understand how the process operates.
It is not an examination in which every solicitor in England and Wales is independently assessed against identical objective criteria.
What happens if a firm doesn't submit to Legal 500?
This is particularly important.
Legal 500 says:
If a firm does not provide a law-firm submission, Legal 500 has to rely upon publicly available information.
It then expressly states that in practice, a firm which does not submit is unlikely to feature as prominently in its editorial and rankings. (legal500.com)
That does not invalidate Legal 500’s rankings.
But it establishes an important limitation upon what can sensibly be inferred from them.
A firm being unranked — or ranked below another firm — cannot by itself establish that its individual solicitors have less expertise.
Participation and the information available to researchers form part of the process.
Does paying Legal 500 buy a ranking?
No.
This is another area where accuracy matters.
Legal 500 says there is no charge for an editorial submission and that its editorial rankings operate independently from advertising and paid-for profiles. (legal500.com)
It would therefore be wrong to characterise the Legal 500 rankings simply as “pay to play”.
The more legitimate question is different:
How much weight should a consumer place upon any legal-directory ranking when choosing the individual lawyer who will actually conduct their case?
I believe the answer is: some weight, but certainly not all of it.
Clients instruct lawyers, not league tables
The most important person in a serious legal dispute is often not the firm appearing on the directory page.
It is the solicitor actually conducting the case.
Suppose two firms appear in different Legal 500 tiers.
That ranking alone does not tell you:
which solicitor will actually handle your case;
how many trials that solicitor has conducted;
Or, whether they have:
Conducted their own advocacy
Higher Rights of Audience
Cross-examined witnesses;
Dealt with cases involving substantial businesses or assets;
Conducted complex financial remedy proceedings;
Handled difficult children cases;
Challenged wills based upon capacity or undue influence;
Appeared in appellate litigation; or
What their own clients repeatedly say about them.
Those can be highly relevant considerations when choosing representation.
Higher Rights of Audience are an objective qualification
Higher Rights of Audience provide a useful example of the distinction between a directory ranking and a professional credential.
I am a Solicitor-Advocate with Higher Rights of Audience in civil and criminal proceedings.
Higher Rights allow suitably qualified solicitors to act as advocates in the higher courts.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority’s figures for August 2026 record 7,126 practising solicitors with Higher Rights of Audience, of whom only 1,295 held Higher Rights in both civil and criminal proceedings. (sra.org.uk)
That is an objectively verifiable professional qualification.
It is different in character from an editorial recommendation.
For someone involved in substantial contested litigation, advocacy experience may be an important factor when deciding who should conduct their case.
Actual cases can tell clients a great deal
Another valuable indicator is genuine case experience.
Marketing descriptions are easy to write.
Actual cases are more difficult to manufacture.
Where cases are reported publicly, they can provide independently verifiable evidence of the level and complexity of litigation with which a solicitor or firm has been involved.
Gavin Edmondson Solicitors itself has been involved in litigation which ultimately reached the Supreme Court.
Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd [2018] UKSC 21 was decided by the Supreme Court on 18 April 2018 following proceedings which had previously reached the Court of Appeal. (supremecourt.uk)
That is publicly verifiable information.
For clients assessing solicitors, evidence of real litigation can therefore provide something materially different from a directory description.
What about cases which aren't reported?
Most litigation never produces a publicly reported judgment.
That does not mean it has no evidential value.
A properly anonymised case history can demonstrate whether a solicitor regularly encounters the sort of problems that a prospective client is facing.
For example, somebody seeking representation in a complex divorce might reasonably want to know whether their solicitor has actually handled cases involving:
businesses and company valuations;
hidden or undisclosed assets;
cryptocurrency;
forensic accountants;
substantial pensions;
allegations of dissipation;
applications concerning the disposition of assets;
lengthy contested hearings; and
complex child arrangements alongside financial proceedings.
Likewise, somebody contesting a will may reasonably want to know whether their solicitor has dealt with:
testamentary capacity;
undue influence;
fraudulent calumny;
executor disputes;
medical evidence;
cross-examination of experts;
Inheritance Act claims; and
contested probate trials.
At Gavin Edmondson Solicitors, we publish examples of genuine case experience so prospective clients can see the type of litigation we actually undertake.
That evidence should be assessed alongside — rather than replaced by — directory recognition.
Client reviews provide another form of evidence
Client reviews are also valuable.
They measure something different again.
A legal directory assesses firms and lawyers through its own research methodology.
A body of genuine client reviews provides direct evidence of individual clients’ experiences of using the firm.
Neither should be regarded as infallible.
However, when examining reviews, I would look beyond the headline star rating.
Look at:
the total number of reviews;
how recently they were written
whether positive feedback is supported by detailed descriptions of the client’s experience.
whether reviews accumulated consistently over several years;
what clients actually say;
whether similar themes repeatedly appear;
whether clients identify particular solicitors;
whether the reviews concern the type of work for which you require representation
A large body of detailed client feedback can reveal patterns which a single award or ranking cannot.
Why Google reviews can be particularly useful
Google reviews have an obvious practical advantage for consumers.
They are visible in the same search environment that many people use when looking for a solicitor.
A prospective client can therefore examine a firm’s public reputation alongside its website, location and other search information.
That does not mean a Google review is automatically correct.
Nor does it mean specialist legal-review websites have no value.
The more sensible approach is to look at the overall evidential picture rather than allowing one platform to determine the answer.
Reviews don’t prove legal ability either
It is equally important not to move from one oversimplification to another.
A solicitor with hundreds of five-star reviews is not automatically the best solicitor for every difficult case.
Reviews often tell you extremely useful things about:
service;
responsiveness;
communication;
empathy;
organisation; and
the client’s overall experience.
But difficult litigation also requires technical expertise, judgment, experience and sometimes advocacy skills which cannot necessarily be established from reviews alone.
That is precisely why consumers should examine several independent indicators.
A better way of choosing a solicitor
Rather than asking:
“Which firm has the highest directory ranking?”
I believe clients facing serious legal proceedings should ask a broader series of questions.
1. Is the solicitor properly regulated?
Check the firm’s and solicitor’s regulatory status.
2. Does the individual have relevant qualifications?
Look at professional qualifications and accreditations relevant to the work concerned.
3. What does the solicitor actually specialise in?
There is a substantial difference between somebody occasionally accepting a particular type of case and somebody whose working practice is built around it.
4. What cases have they actually handled?
Look for genuine case experience rather than general descriptions such as “experienced” or “leading”.
5. Is any of that experience independently verifiable?
Reported judgments and other public records can be particularly valuable.
6. Do they conduct advocacy?
Where litigation is likely, ask who will actually represent you at important hearings and trials.
7. What do their clients say?
Look for patterns across a substantial body of genuine reviews rather than relying upon an isolated testimonial.
8. Who will actually deal with your case?
This is perhaps the most overlooked question.
A firm’s reputation and the individual lawyer’s experience are not necessarily the same thing.
So how much weight should you give Legal 500?
Legal 500 can be useful.
A ranking can provide independent evidence that a practice has attracted favourable attention during Legal 500’s research.
The methodology takes account of information which can include substantial work, client feedback, peer feedback and market reputation. (legal500.com)
That deserves recognition.
But it shouldn’t be turned into something it isn’t.
Legal 500 is not the solicitor’s regulator.
It isn’t a professional qualification.
It isn’t a court record.
It doesn’t replace analysis of the individual solicitor.
And Legal 500 itself acknowledges that firms which don’t make submissions are unlikely to feature as prominently in its editorial and rankings. (legal500.com)
The appropriate conclusion is therefore not that legal directories are worthless.
It is that a legal-directory ranking is one indicator amongst many.
Evidence is better than badges
When I assess the credentials of another lawyer, I am interested in evidence.
What have they actually done?
What cases have they conducted?
What qualifications do they possess?
How much of their working life is spent dealing with this particular area of law?
Can I see genuine examples?
Can any of those examples be independently checked?
What do a significant number of their clients say about them?
And if the case goes badly wrong and has to be fought, who is actually capable of standing up and conducting it?
Those questions tell you things which no single league table can answer.
Legal 500, Chambers, professional accreditations, reported cases, Higher Rights of Audience and client reviews can all contribute information.
But clients should examine the underlying evidence.
Choose the lawyer, not simply the badge.
About the author
Gavin Edmondson LLB (Hons), Dip BVC is the founder and principal of Gavin Edmondson Solicitors and a Solicitor-Advocate with Higher Rights of Audience.
He was called to the Bar at Gray’s Inn in 1999 before practising as a solicitor and solicitor-advocate. His current practice focuses primarily on complex family litigation and contentious probate, including financial remedy disputes, difficult child arrangements cases, contested wills and inheritance litigation.
Gavin Edmondson Solicitors was the respondent/cross-appellant in Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd [2018] UKSC 21, determined by the Supreme Court following earlier Court of Appeal proceedings.
Areas we Cover
If you are looking for more information on legal 500 rankings, Gavin Edmondson Solicitors are proud to service the following areas: Northwich, Cheshire. We regularly assist clients throughout Warrington, Chester, Crewe, Runcorn, Macclesfield, and Winsford. Wilmslow, Knutsford, Nantwich, and Alderley Edge.