As in other European countries, there has been a growing pressure on assessing academic research in Switzerland. This also applies to the field of academic legal research. This article, which is based on a survey in Switzerland, aims to explore the assessment procedures and criteria that are used to evaluate academic legal publications and to judge their suitability. In doing so, two important principles have to be respected: first, the suitability of assessment procedures and quality criteria depends on the context and the purpose of the assessment. Additionally, peculiarities of research (and publication) behaviour in academic legal research have to be taken into account. Second, researchers of a certain field need to be involved into the process of defining how to evaluate research (bottom-up approach). On the basis of literature analysis, the actual use and suitability of assessment procedures and criteria were explored in a survey among editors of law journals, law professors, and practitioners (lawyers). Results show that academic legal publications in Switzerland are mainly being assessed by means of (simple) peer review, whereby double-blind peer review procedures are rarely used. There appears to be some common ground among stakeholders concerning appropriate criteria, but the substance of criteria remains unclear. Bibliometric methods and indicators are rarely being used and generally do not yield meaningful results.