Why Your Chambers Ranking Doesn’t Impress Chinese Clients
“The Chinese client must first approach you. And to approach you, they will either have heard of you from somewhere or read about you in a directory or maybe heard of you from LexChina. But you have to go beyond just that referral. They come to you based on your reputation. And they now begin to establish how do I trust this entity and how do I confirm the reputation?”
David Ofosu-Dorte‘s observation dismantles a comfortable myth that Western law firms have built their China strategies around: that legal directory rankings create competitive advantage in Chinese markets. They don’t. Rankings might get you the initial inquiry, but as the Executive Chairman of AB & David Law explains from decades of China-Africa transactions, Chinese clients then begin an evaluation process that renders those credentials nearly irrelevant.
On October 31, 2025, LexChina convened a roundtable that brought together legal practitioners from Italy, Ghana, China, and Hong Kong to decode why international firms’ credential-first approach fails so consistently in China’s $25 billion legal services market. The discussion, titled “How to Win Chinese Clients — Similarities and Differences in Legal Market Cultures,” revealed a fundamental disconnect: What international firms think Chinese clients want bears little resemblance to what those clients actually prioritize when selecting counsel.
The gap between Western assumptions and Chinese reality costs firms millions in failed business development efforts annually. More importantly, it prevents substantive legal expertise from reaching clients who need it—not because the expertise doesn’t exist, but because firms cannot communicate their value in culturally comprehensible terms.
The Credential Paradox: When Brand Becomes Barrier
International law firms operate on a simple theory: Build brand through rankings, let brand drive client acquisition. Invest in Chambers submissions. Tout Legal 500 tiers. Lead pitch meetings with Am Law positions. Chinese clients, the theory assumes, will respond the same way Western clients do—treating rankings as a proxy for quality and safety.
David Ofosu-Dorte explodes this assumption based on frontline experience: “Unlike many Western companies who may want to rely on the trust based on the fact that maybe you are a ranked law firm, or you are in some particular directory, Chinese clients tend not to look at that as such. Their reputation is important, but then they move to building relationship and trying to get references as to what you have actually done before, not just the tier you are ranked.”
The distinction matters enormously. Western clients often use rankings as decision shortcuts—if Chambers says Band 1, the thinking goes, due diligence is largely complete. Chinese clients reverse this logic. Rankings might generate initial awareness, but Ofosu-Dorte describes what happens next: “They come to you based on your reputation. And they now begin to establish how do I trust this entity and how do I confirm the reputation. So unlike a typical Western client who may leave the trust to adjust that reputation in your directory or a ranking, the Chinese clients go beyond that. And they will do quite a number of engagements before they end up agreeing to even hire you.”
“Quite a number of engagements”—multiple meetings, reference checks, informal consultations, all before producing billable work. This evaluation process can span months. For firms expecting credentials to accelerate sales cycles, Chinese markets deliver the opposite: prolonged vetting that treats rankings as interesting but ultimately unpersuasive.
Bernardo Cartoni, Director of LexChina, reinforced this from his position bridging Italian and Chinese markets: “Building a personal acquaintance or friendship, if we are lucky, is the key. Is the key.” Not credentials—personal connection. Not brand—individual trustworthiness.
What Chinese Clients Actually Evaluate
If not rankings, what? The panel identified evaluation criteria that rarely appear in Western law firm marketing materials but determine Chinese client selection:
Specific transaction experience, not general practice area claims. Ofosu-Dorte emphasized Chinese clients want to know “what you have actually done before.” Not “we have a leading M&A practice”—they want to hear about the specific Indonesian mining acquisition you structured, the particular EPC contract negotiation you led, the actual regulatory approval you secured.
Reference networks they trust, not testimonials you provide. Chinese clients conduct extensive reference checks through their own networks. They ask lawyers they know about firms they’re considering. They trust personal recommendations from trusted sources far more than client lists in pitch decks.
Cultural fluency, not cultural awareness training. Bernardo Cartoni made this explicit: “Coming from the other part of the world, it is advisable to show respect for the Chinese culture, not to approach the Chinese market with a colonialistic approach. The center of the world is not the European countries or the Anglo-Saxon world and we don’t have to explain everything to the savages. No, China has a plurimillennial culture.”
His solution reveals the depth of preparation required: “From my experience, telling my Chinese potential clients or also counterparts in negotiation that I read the five great novels, great Chinese novels and I appreciated them with appropriate quotation, it’s something that has facilitated me in creating this kind of trust, this kind of guanxi.”
Regulatory relationships, not just regulatory knowledge. Ofosu-Dorte identified a factor Western firms often overlook: “For both state-owned and normal private sector Chinese clients, your contacts and who you know is quite important to them because they tend to be very concerned about the nuances of laws in other countries and your ability to explain the law and also be able to know officials who are in charge of the law tends to be factors when they are building relationships with law firms.”
Chinese clients aren’t just buying legal analysis—they’re buying access to regulatory officials and comfort with enforcement authorities. Can you pick up the phone and get answers from the relevant ministry? Do local regulators know and respect you? These relationships matter more than your Chambers ranking.
The Timeline Mismatch: Quarterly Targets vs. Bamboo Growth
Beyond credentials, the second failure mode for Western firms involves timeline expectations. Steven Shi, Founder of SLLS Global, captured this with a metaphor that explains why firms give up too early: “Working with Chinese client is not just about understanding the law, it’s about understanding the rhythm of the trust. My always belief is to stay patient. In China, relationships grow like bamboo, slowly, then suddenly strong and lasting.”
Bamboo spends years growing roots underground before shooting upward rapidly. Chinese business relationships follow the same pattern—extensive cultivation before visible results. Western business development operates on quarterly cycles: pitch this month, close next month, start billing the month after. Chinese relationship building spans multiple quarters, sometimes multiple years, before generating billable work.
Shi made the implications explicit: “I would like to try to give my sincere intention that I would like to maintain a long-term relationship with you whether or not you would like to give me any task or projects to do. So what I mean is I would like to appreciate this chance for me to be a friend first and to introduce myself and then to try to solve any problem that may be happening during our communication.”
Notice the radical decoupling: relationship commitment independent of immediate business. This signals to Chinese clients you’re not extracting transactions but building something durable. It’s the opposite of Western business development’s “always be closing”—it’s “always be present.”
Hongxia Zhang, Partner at Grandall Law Firm, connected this to China’s evolving market: “Now more and more Chinese companies go abroad, which means our domestic law firm needs the foreign law firm and we can get much more mutual understanding and mutual benefits together.”
But mutual benefit requires accepting mutual timelines. Chinese clients view legal advisors as long-term partners, not transactional service providers. Firms unwilling to invest months or years in relationship cultivation before expecting revenue will lose to competitors who accept this reality.
The Fee Structure Minefield: When Pricing Becomes Cultural Communication
Credentials don’t impress Chinese clients. Neither do Western fee structures. Hongxia Zhang delivered perhaps the session’s most candid observation about why: “Regarding the price, I think what the Chinese client wants is much more certainty. That is the difference, the key difference between the Chinese client and the European client or other African client. Because what does the Chinese client want? Because the Chinese lawyer always does this, okay? They will offer their client a fixed rate and say, okay, everything was included in this fixed rate. So I think it’s our Chinese lawyers’ problem. It is us who spoiled our client.”
“Spoiled our client”—Chinese domestic firms have trained clients to expect fixed-fee certainty by building their business models around it. When international firms arrive proposing hourly rates, they’re not just offering different pricing—they’re asking Chinese clients to accept financial uncertainty their domestic market has taught them to reject.
Zhang illustrated with a specific transaction: “I remember one of my client, he wants to invest a project in UAE, in Dubai. And the local lawyer offered my client that’s 1000 USD per hour. But that case is very complicated and includes to design and revise the EPC contract and to set up the joint venture contract, something like that, and many communications, negotiations with their counterparties. So I think that’s the 1,000 USD one hour is pretty reasonable, actually. It’s reasonable. But when the local law firm and the local lawyer in the UAE offer this hourly rate to China’s client, the Chinese client is so surprised, can’t believe that.”
The Dubai lawyer’s rate was reasonable. The scope was appropriate. Yet the Chinese client’s reaction was immediate resistance—not to the total cost, but to the structure itself. Zhang‘s solution reveals the bridge: “After my calculation, the cap rate or the cap price for this project, maybe just one million RMB. And when I tell my client, okay, the total fee is just one million RMB, they accept it. Yeah, they accept it. They say, okay, you will do everything for me. Okay, you gave me the certainty, you gave me the expectation, I accept it.”
Same work. Likely same total cost. But presented as fixed certainty rather than hourly accumulation, the Chinese client accepted immediately. How you price signals whether you understand Chinese business realities—it’s cultural communication, not just commercial negotiation.
Bernardo Cartoni added another cultural dimension: “I usually propose two separate sets of fees to my clients, so a fixed fee maybe divided in steps or stages and a typical hourly rate fee and I let them choose. And one very important thing to understand is not to put your Chinese potential client or actual client in a take it or leave it dilemma, because you have to give face, to give mianzi, to the Chinese client. So let them think that they are in control. Maybe you actually are in control of everything, but let them keep their face, they can keep their self-esteem, and it is easier to reach an arrangement.”The concept of mianzi—face—operating in fee negotiations surprises Western practitioners. But Cartoni understands that Chinese clients need to present fee arrangements to their organizations in ways that demonstrate their negotiating effectiveness. Take-it-or-leave-it ultimatums put them in positions where accepting looks weak internally. Offering choices allows them to demonstrate judgment while preserving face.
The SOE-Private Sector Divide
David Ofosu-Dorte introduced a critical distinction that affects both pricing and relationship building strategies: “From decades of working with Chinese clients, they generally want to know who you are first before what you can do. But I tend to group them into two. The first category are the ones who are SOEs, the ones with some state support. They have a slightly different approach than those who are not state support.”
The SOE difference manifests in cost pressure: “In respect of the state-owned entities, it appears to me there’s a lot of cost pressure on them in determining hiring. So notwithstanding the fact that you have the trust and you have the relationship, they tend to look at how you price.”
This challenges the assumption that guanxi trumps all other considerations. With SOEs, Ofosu-Dorte suggests, relationship gets you to the negotiating table, but competitive pricing determines whether you get the engagement. The internal approval processes and scrutiny SOE legal departments face create constraints that private Chinese companies don’t experience to the same degree.
The Invisible Decision Maker Problem
Western corporate hierarchies feature clear decision-making chains. Chinese organizations, the panel revealed, often operate through less visible power dynamics. Ofosu-Dorte addressed this challenge directly: “The question of the invisible decision maker, I’ve experienced it a number of times working with Chinese clients because the person you are interacting with may not necessarily be the one making the decision.”
His solution demonstrates patient relationship building: “I have found that the more you increase the engagement, the more likely the person you are interacting with is ready to bring the real decision maker on board. And I’ve had several occasions where suddenly somebody pops up and he’s the one who is actually making the decisions.”
“Suddenly somebody pops up”—lawyers invest weeks communicating with one contact, only to discover in crucial moments that an entirely different person holds veto power. Rather than treating this as dysfunction to correct, Ofosu-Dorte recognizes it as Chinese organizational reality to navigate through sustained engagement.
Bernardo Cartoni offered a more direct approach when appropriate: “It is always important to clarify why I’m asking those questions. If the counsel, the lawyers, or the mid-range employees are not able to convey this message to the big boss, let’s talk directly with the big boss. Maybe in the presence of a neutral.”
He then invoked Chinese philosophical framework: “We always should keep in mind that the Chinese word for mediation means creating harmony by speaking. So try to speak more and to explain more.”
Why Rankings Still Matter—Just Not How Firms Think
To say Chambers rankings don’t impress Chinese clients isn’t to say they’re worthless. They serve a specific, limited function that firms must understand: generating initial awareness, not driving selection decisions.
Ofosu-Dorte clarified: “The Chinese client must first approach you. And to approach you, they will either have heard of you from somewhere or read about you in a directory or maybe heard of you from LexChina.”
Rankings create that initial approach—but everything that matters happens after. As Ofosu-Dorte emphasized: “But you have to go beyond just that referral.”
The practical implication: Firms should maintain directory presence to stay visible, but cannot rely on rankings to close business. The real competitive advantage comes from what happens in the months after the directory generates that first inquiry—the relationship building, cultural fluency demonstration, reference network activation, and patient trust cultivation that rankings cannot shortcut.
What Actually Works: The Path Forward
The panel’s collective experience points toward a fundamentally different China market strategy:
Invest in cultural preparation, not just market research. Bernardo Cartoni‘s approach—studying classical Chinese literature, understanding mediation philosophy, avoiding colonialistic postures—demonstrates the depth of cultural engagement that builds trust credentials cannot create.
Accept timeline realities that contradict Western economics. Steven Shi‘s bamboo metaphor captures the patient capital approach required: months or years of cultivation before revenue, compensated by durable relationships once trust is established.
Structure fees that provide certainty, not just competitive rates. Hongxia Zhang and Bernardo Cartoni‘s advice on fixed fees, caps, and optionality reflects understanding that fee structure itself communicates cultural competence.
Build reference networks through sustained engagement. David Ofosu-Dorte‘s emphasis on relationship building that eventually surfaces invisible decision makers demonstrates the value of persistent presence over credential presentation.
Recognize state-owned and private clients require different approaches. Ofosu-Dorte‘s SOE-private distinction shows Chinese markets aren’t monolithic—segmentation strategies matter.
Steven Shi captured the overarching theme in his closing remarks: “Working with Chinese client is not just about understanding the law, it’s about understanding the rhythm of the trust. In China, relationships grow like bamboo, slowly, then suddenly strong and lasting.”
For international law firms serious about China market success, this roundtable offers essential reality: The $25 billion opportunity is real, but accessing it requires abandoning the credential-first strategies that work in Western markets. Chambers rankings might get you the inquiry, but they won’t get you the client. What gets you the client is everything rankings cannot measure: cultural fluency, relationship patience, fee structure adaptation, and sustained presence that builds character trust over time.
The firms that succeed won’t be those with the most impressive credentials—they’ll be those willing to invest in genuine cultural understanding, patient relationship building, and business models adapted to Chinese client expectations rather than expecting Chinese clients to adapt to Western conventions.
Bernardo Cartoni is Director of LexChina, where he leads the organization’s mission to connect international law firms with China’s legal market through official partnerships with Chinese judicial authorities. Based between Italy, Geneva, and Shenzhen, he brings strategic expertise in regulatory navigation and market entry, having guided numerous international firms through establishing compliant operations in China’s evolving legal landscape. He is also a listed arbitrator at HKIAC and Shanghai Arbitration Commission. As a contributor to LexChina Forum, he provides essential insights on bridging European and Chinese legal service cultures.
David Ofosu-Dorte is Executive Chairman of AB & David Law, one of West Africa’s premier law firms. With decades of experience in cross-border transactions involving Chinese entities, he has developed deep expertise in China-Africa legal relations. His practice encompasses the strategic intersection where African business interests meet Chinese investment. As a contributor to LexChina Forum, he offers invaluable perspectives on how relationship-driven business cultures can successfully bridge continental divides.
Hongxia Zhang is a Partner at Grandall Law Firm, one of China’s leading full-service law firms. Her practice focuses on international collaboration models and cross-border transactions, positioning her uniquely to address competitive-cooperative dynamics between Chinese domestic firms and international practices. As a contributor to LexChina Forum, she provides essential Chinese domestic market perspectives on building mutually beneficial relationships across different legal service cultures.
Steven Shi is Founder of SLLS Global, bringing extensive experience in structuring international legal collaborations and cross-border project coordination. His practice emphasizes the practical mechanics of how international and Chinese legal teams work effectively together. Previously with KPMG Law, Steven developed expertise in one-stop professional service models. As a contributor to LexChina Forum, his insights stem from direct experience navigating the cultural nuances that determine project success in China’s legal market.