Service · Performance & feedback
360-degree feedback for law firms
The same competency questions asked of everyone who works with a lawyer: peers, supervising partners, direct reports and, where appropriate, clients, split by rater group so the answers can be compared without exposing anyone.
Who this is for
- Firms evaluating partners, counsel and senior associates in the round
- Professional development teams building a competency framework
- Practice groups small enough that anonymity has to be engineered, not assumed
In a small practice group, anonymity is arithmetic
A 360 stops being anonymous when a reviewee can infer who said what from the number of people who could have said it. There is no single group size at which this happens. It depends on rater pool size, response rate and how finely the report is cut.
Law firms feel this more sharply than corporates. Reviewees know who staffed which matters, so they can reconstruct the rater pool from memory; and because the reviewee often controls work allocation, the perceived cost of being identified is high enough that people assume the worst and answer blandly.
How a cycle runs
SRA designs the instrument, runs the cycle, chases participation, processes the data and delivers the reports. Your team approves the questionnaire and reads the findings.
- Weeks 1–2Competency framework mapping, rater group definition and a threshold model for each planned report cut.
- Week 3Population load and distribution by individual secure link.
- Weeks 3–5Fielding, automated reminders and live participation reporting to the firm.
- Week 6Data aggregation and threshold suppression. Free-text comments reviewed for identifiability.
- Weeks 7–8Report delivery at individual, practice group and firm level, then a findings readout.
What you receive
Reports split by rater group
Peer, upward, downward and self views shown side by side, with the gaps between them made explicit.
Self-versus-other gap analysis
Where a lawyer rates themselves differently from the people around them, which is usually the most actionable part of a 360.
Threshold documentation
The suppression math for every cut, published with the report so the firm can see what was withheld and why.
Coaching-ready summaries
Findings framed so a PD lead can walk a partner through two behaviors to change, rather than a wall of scores.
Confidentiality
How the data is held, in practice
The rules below are the reason participation holds and the reason findings are worth acting on. They are enforced by where the data sits, not by policy alone.
Read the confidentiality pledge →Independent custody
Response data never enters your firm's systems in an identifying way. SRA holds and processes it as an independent party, under a data processing agreement in which your firm remains the controller.
Suppression thresholds
The reporting threshold is set for your firm before the cycle opens, against the size of each population being surveyed. Below it, a cut is reported in aggregate or withheld entirely rather than estimated.
Comments reviewed before release
Free-text responses are reviewed for identifiability, so no one can be recognized by role, matter or phrasing.
Certified handling
ISO 27001 certified. SOC 2 Type I available under NDA. GDPR Article 28 and CCPA aligned, with SRA as processor and your firm as controller.
Disclosure required by law. SRA does not identify a respondent to your firm. Identity is disclosed only where the law requires it. Where the law permits, SRA gives notice before disclosing, and discloses only what is legally required.
Why firms use an independent party
Every figure below is recorded in an evidence register with its definition, source and period. Illustrative figures used elsewhere in the design are excluded here by design.
- 35 years serving US law firms
- Years of continuous operation, 1991 to present.
- 100+ elite Am Law firms as clients
- Count of distinct Am Law-ranked firms that have engaged SRA. Cumulative, not concurrent.
- 100,000+ confidential surveys conducted
- Count of individual survey responses collected.
- 1,000,000+ performance reports delivered
- Count of individual performance reports produced and delivered.
- ISO 27001 certified
- Certified information security management system. Certificate number and scope available on request.
On 360-degree feedback
All insights →How Small Can a Practice Group Be Before a 360 Stops Being Anonymous?
How small a practice group can be before a 360 stops being anonymous, with a worked table by group size and four options when a group falls below threshold.
4 September 2026
What Questions Go in an Attorney 360-Degree Review? (2026)
32 attorney 360 review questions by rater group, plus the rating scale, the questions to avoid and the group size where anonymity breaks down.
20 August 2026
What Questions Go in an Attorney 360-Degree Review?
A 2026 question bank for attorney 360 reviews: sample questions across feedback, leadership, collaboration and ethics.
22 July 2026
What Is 360-Degree Feedback? A Law Firm Guide (2026)
360-degree feedback gives law firms a fuller, fairer picture of attorney performance. Here's what it is, how it works, and how to run it well.
10 March 2026
360 Feedback for Lawyers: Benefits, Risks, and Best Practices
Should law firms use 360 feedback? Explore the real benefits, risks, and best practices of multi-rater reviews for lawyers, backed by current research and indus
27 February 2026
Upward Reviews vs 360 Feedback in Law Firms: Which One Actually Works?'
Upward reviews and 360 feedback aren't the same and law firms often pick the wrong one. Here's how they differ and when to use each.
18 December 2025
Performance & feedback
This is one program inside a broader practice
This is a workflow your firm shapes, not a fixed product. Firms run it for the populations, cadence and reporting they agree, and give the program whatever name suits them. It sits inside Performance & feedback.
What you can tailor
- Who is reviewed, and who reviews them
- Competencies and questions
- An annual cycle, or another cadence you agree
- Who sees which report
What an agreed scope covers
An engagement covers the review types, the populations and the cycle you agree. Adding a review type or a population is a change of scope rather than something a practice includes by default.
These are not one instrument. A downward evaluation is attributed to the partner who wrote it, because the associate needs to know whose judgment it is. An upward review is confidential and reported only above an agreed threshold, because an associate assessing the partner who staffs their matters answers honestly only when identification is impossible. Both are explained to participants before they answer.
How to run it
Run with your team
Use Artemis to configure and run the agreed program, with onboarding and standard support. Your team owns administration and follow-through.
Explore Artemis →Have SRA manage the program
Agree the design, administration, analysis and readouts you want SRA to provide. Your firm retains the decisions and actions that follow.
Discuss a managed program →Running one program in Artemis does not commit the rest of the firm to the same arrangement. You can choose differently for different work.