Methodology · version 2026.2

How League of Legals ranks law firms

Directories that withhold their method ask you to trust the result. This is the whole calculation: four weighted signals, what feeds each one, what is excluded outright, and how a placement can be disputed. The scorer reads the same definition this page renders, so the two cannot drift apart.

Version: 2026.2
Effective from: 2026-01-01
Signals: 5
Exclusions: 5

I. Weighted signals

Signal	Weight
Directory consensus	30%
Court record	25%
Revenue per lawyer	15%
Verified submissions	18%
Peer and client review	12%
Total	100%

Directory consensus30%

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

Court record25%

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 per lawyer15%

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, so it is live in Korea, where firms file VAT taxable-base declarations with the National Tax Service, and dormant elsewhere. Only figures a firm has published itself, or official open data, are used; league tables compiled by trade publishers are not.

Sources · Firm revenue disclosures · National Tax Service filings (KR) · Bar association registries

Verified submissions18%

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

Peer and client review12%

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

II. Excluded from every score

01Advertising spend, sponsorship, or any commercial relationship with League of Legals.
02Firm size, and revenue that has not been divided by headcount — scale is not quality.
03Submissions that no independent source corroborates.
04Survey responses from a party with an undisclosed interest in the outcome.
05Any signal a firm can buy, in any form.

III. Bands

Band	Composite	Meaning
Band 1	90 and above	Consistent first choice across every signal.
Band 2	84 and above	Strong across most signals, with a clear specialism.
Band 3	Below 84	Recognised in the market for defined work.

IV. Revision and dispute

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.

Version history

2026.1

2026-01-01

First published methodology. Four weighted signals, published exclusions, per-placement evidence trail.