·       Check the ‘Practice Area Definition’. Confirm what the general disputes table in your jurisdiction covers. If your region has separate tables for (e.g.) shipping, real estate, banking litigation, those matters will carry limited weighting here. As a rule, corporate and commercial disputes attract the greatest weighting and should form the core of your submission.

·       Prioritise high-value claims. All else equal, a £100m dispute will usually carry more weight than a £10m dispute. If applicable, there may be other monetary values you can provide to showcase the significance of the matter. For example, if only $100k is in dispute, though it stemmed from a $50m transaction, be sure to also reference the latter figure in your matter summary.

·       Provide context. Do not dive straight into the current state of the proceedings, instead be sure to set the scene of the dispute. Identify who the parties are and how the dispute arose. This will help the researcher better appreciate the significance of the case.

·       Evidence complexity, not chronology. Beyond sheer value, include matters with highly complex, novel or unprecedented points of law. Avoid an exhaustive timeline; set the context, as above, and then focus on 4–5 high-level reasons the case is complex.

·       Forum can matter. Cases in the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, Court of Cassation, etc., will generally be given heavy weighting. Be sure to mention, if relevant.

·       Mix concluded and ongoing work. Include both live matters and concluded cases from the past 12 months, the latter let you demonstrate strong client outcomes.

·       Highlight international elements. Don’t gloss over cross-border aspects. Explain how conflicts of law/jurisdiction increased the matter’s complexity.

·       Balance your portfolio. If all your best disputes cluster in one industry (e.g., energy/projects), you may struggle to reach the top tier versus a practice showing strength across sectors. Aim to demonstrate breadth as well as depth.