Naming names… Naming clients in tenders: how to balance confidentiality without weakening your bid
Some lawyers or law firms are deeply uncomfortable naming clients or including recognisable details in their tenders.
It’s understandable given the nature of the profession, but when confidentiality concerns are applied too broadly, it can seriously weaken your submission.
This article is for BD and marketing professionals navigating this tension with partners and legal teams.
It offers a practical approach to referencing client work responsibly, without undermining your credibility.
First, you don’t have to name names
It’s true; most tenders don’t require you to name clients. You can write anonymised case studies, redact identifying details, or generalise where needed.
But that doesn’t mean it’s always the best approach.
Specificity builds credibility
Specifics make your bid stronger. They:
Help evaluators understand the scale, type, and context of your work
Show that your experience is real, recent, and relevant
Provide touchpoints for follow-up or verification (especially in government tenders)
Get them thinking, ‘well if XYZ & Partners is good enough for Household Name Client, then …’
Vague, overly sanitised examples tend to feel generic and less persuasive.
A good faith, risk-aware approach
Here are key principles to guide the conversation:
De-identify where necessary, but avoid blanket anonymisation
Only include matters your clients would reasonably expect to appear in a tender context (e.g. common, non-sensitive work)
Don’t name clients when doing so would:
Breach a confidentiality obligation (the partner may be aware of a client that is particularly touchy about certain matters)
Embarrass or expose the client
Undermine a live or controversial matter.
Do name clients when:
The matter is on the public record or widely known
The client has previously given a written reference or been used as a referee
The work makes them look good (e.g. proactive initiatives, governance reviews)
Talking points for internal discussions
If you’re getting pushback, try these:
“If we’re including a referee, they’ll likely be contacted … so the client will know we’ve referenced their work anyway.”
“We’re not including super-sensitive matters … we’ve only referenced common scenarios seen across many clients.”
“This detail is already public, reported, or industry-known i.e. we’re not disclosing anything new.”
“We’re not making any client look bad. In fact, the work reflects well on their risk management or responsiveness.”
“We’ve kept it high level; there’s no individual or case detail that could compromise confidentiality.”
“Many of our referees have disclosed more in their reference letters than we’ve included here.”
What other firms are doing
Most government tenders require, and expect, named clients and verifiable case examples
Many corporates will tolerate de-identification but still expect clear context and credible stories
Reputable firms strike a balance: anonymise where appropriate, but name where safe and strategic.
Final word
It’s not about naming clients for the sake of it; it’s about giving your evaluators enough information to trust you.
When handled thoughtfully, you can share credible, specific examples without compromising client confidence.
About the author
Amy Burton-Bradley is a legal tender strategist and the founder of Bidtique. Law Firm Tenders is her resource site for firms who want to sharpen their approach to tenders, bids, and proposals.