New York Lawyer
September 12, 2002

Q:
I have been working at my present firm for a year and a half. I came in as a lateral after two years of practice before that.

I have never had a formal performance review. I got a perfunctory account of my billable hours and raise along with a "good job" kind of thing, but there wasn�t a comprehensive discussion.

I know everyone�s busy, but it would be nice to get some structured feedback.

Submit Your Question

Find More Answers

A:

You�re right. A frequent omission in law office management -- and in fact at corporations across the land, despite reams of performance review forms and lots of management advice -- is to sit down once or twice a year and give people feedback based on specific, concrete criteria. It�s amazing how many places actually have a system in place but the reviews just don�t happen.

Why does this matter? If someone is doing a good job, what difference does it make whether you sit down and tell them in detail or not? Isn�t no news, in a way, perfectly acceptable as good news? You�re paying people to be good lawyers, so if they do that, why make a big thing out of it? And if they�re doing a bad job, just get rid of them.

That�s one approach. I would argue for a highly structured, formal performance review system for three main reasons:

Fairness. If you have discrete, well-defined criteria for evaluating people, reward and recognition and advancement will be perceived as much fairer than otherwise. The perception of merit as the basis for advancement is much stronger when merit is clearly defined and measured. This is particularly important to avoid deliberate or inadvertent preferences based improperly on gender or race. Informal systems are the enemy of diversity.

Development. If people get specific feedback, not only will they know specifically what they�re doing right, they�ll also know where they can improve. This requires, to be sure, the often painful act of telling know-it-all people that they have some weak points. But if the long-term goal is to build a more successful firm, letting people where they�re falling down is crucial. Also, couching feedback as a benefit -- information that is transmitted because you want those whom you are supervising to be the best possible practitioners --makes clear that you care about them.

Success. A crucial distinction between lackluster organizations and high-performing firms is one where people can be (diplomatically) straight with one another about their shortcomings and build stronger performances. This will rarely happy in the absence of a concerted effort to evaluate performance in a careful manner.

There are several stumbling blocks. One is the lack of a formal system. It�s takes time to develop but it�s worth it. You don�t have to reinvent the wheel -- consult law firm management books and other sources. (A good one is "Fair Measure: Toward Effective Attorney Evaluations," published by the ABA Commission on Women in the Profession).

The second frequent excuse is a lack of time. Make the time! It�s part of your responsibility when supervising people. Those you supervise will like you better for it and be more motivated. A thoughtful, thorough performance review can refuel an energized performance for months.

Third is a lack of courage. Many people don�t like to deliver bad news so they soft-sell it or avoid it altogether. You are not doing anyone any favors that way. They languish and dig themselves into a hole. Don�t assume that someone has no possibility of improvement -- think of all the things you learned on the way up. Think carefully about how to deliver your message so that you communicate the message without alienating people.

Sincerely,
Holly English
Principal Consultant, Values at Work