Associate & counsel evaluations
A better way to run associate evaluations
Whether you are replacing an evaluation system or improving a manual process, Artemis by SRA helps your firm run structured, reliable attorney reviews without the administrative work piling up on your PD team.
Artemis is the evaluation platform SRA built for law firms, and the SRA team supports it from configuration through reporting.
Your evaluation process shouldn't depend on spreadsheets and follow-up emails
A single review cycle can involve dozens or hundreds of associates, several supervising attorneys for each of them, self-assessments, different competency frameworks by class year or practice group, deadline extensions, reviewers who need to be excused, and a report the compensation committee needs by a fixed date. Most of that coordination lands on a small PD team, in email and spreadsheets.
Whether the difficulty sits with an existing vendor or a manual process, the aim is the same: keep the review structure your firm relies on, and make the cycle easier to run.
One workflow, from setup through reporting
Artemis coordinates the evaluation cycle in five stages. In scoping we walk through each one against your firm’s process and confirm what is configured for your cycle before it opens. For how SRA designs the evaluation itself, from reviewer selection to anchored rating scales and calibration, see downward reviews.
Configure
Set up cycles, reviewee groups, competency frameworks, forms and dates that reflect how your firm already evaluates.
Assign
Set who evaluates whom, including several supervising attorneys per associate and the associate’s own self-evaluation.
Collect
Reviewers get a clear form to complete. Administrators can see who has submitted and who has not as the deadline approaches, so follow-up goes to the right people.
Review
Written and structured feedback come together in one place for quality checks and approval before anything is released.
Report
Produce individual and aggregate reports for development conversations and committee review. The report formats your committees need are agreed during scoping.
Designed for the realities of law firms
- Different forms and competencies by class year, practice group or role.
- Several supervising partners per associate, and reviewer assignments that overlap across associates.
- Self-evaluations and supervisor evaluations in the same review cycle.
- Permissions set by role, so sensitive personnel information reaches only the people your firm designates.
- Reports that support professional development conversations and formal review discussions.
- Hands-on implementation support from SRA when your team needs more than software.
Change platforms without rewriting your evaluations
A platform change should not force your firm to reinvent its evaluation methodology. We begin with your current forms, workflow and reporting requirements, the export options your current system provides, and the date your next cycle opens.
How a transition to Artemis runs
- Step 1Review your current workflow. Share blank forms, a process outline, or a redacted example of the reports your firm relies on.
- Step 2Map requirements. We identify what Artemis supports as configured, and anything that needs testing before we commit to it.
- Step 3Agree on scope. Confirm templates, users, timing, data handling, training, and who is responsible for each part of implementation.
- Step 4Configure and test. Your designated administrators test the configured cycle before it opens to reviewers.
- Step 5Run and review. SRA supports rollout and reporting under the agreed software and service scope, then reviews the cycle with your team.
Whether past evaluation records can come across, and at what cost, depends on the format and accessibility of your current records. We test a sample before including it in scope.
Run it yourself, or have SRA run it with you
Both options run on the same Artemis platform. The difference is who carries the administration.
Legal-sector experience behind the software
SRA has worked with US law firms on performance and feedback programs since it was founded. That experience shapes how Artemis handles class years, practice groups, multiple supervising partners and committee reporting, and the support available to your PD team.
Read SRA's methodology for how data is held and processed, or see Artemis by SRA for the platform as a whole.
- 35 years serving US law firms
- Years of continuous operation, 1991 to present.
- 100+ Am Law firms served since 1991
- Count of distinct Am Law-ranked firms that have engaged SRA. Cumulative, not concurrent.
- ISO 27001 certified
- Certified information security management system. Certificate number and scope available on request.
- SOC 2 Type I report available under NDA
- Security, availability and confidentiality trust services criteria.
Questions firms ask
Can we keep our existing evaluation forms and competency framework?
Most firms have established review criteria and want to keep them. We start by reviewing your current templates and confirming how each one is configured in Artemis. Anything that would need to change is identified and agreed before implementation, not discovered during the cycle.
Can associates complete self-evaluations and receive feedback from several supervisors?
Yes. Several supervising attorneys per associate, alongside the associate’s self-evaluation, is the core workflow. In a walkthrough we go through the exact review steps and permissions your firm uses.
Can SRA administer the cycle for us?
Yes. With Artemis + SRA Managed, SRA handles configuration, administration, follow-up with reviewers and reporting under an agreed scope. Your team can also run cycles in Artemis directly.
Can we move from viEval or another evaluation system?
We can assess a transition from your current platform, including Aderant’s viEval, by reviewing your templates, reporting needs and the exports your current system provides. Timing, support for historical records and implementation cost depend on the source system and your requirements, and we set them out in a scoped plan.
The evaluation transition checklist lists what to gather first, whichever platform you choose.
How do confidentiality and permissions work?
Associate evaluations are attributed by design. They are not anonymous: reviewers write as themselves, because an evaluation used in compensation and progression decisions needs an author who can be asked about it. Access to evaluation content is set by role, so it reaches only the people your firm designates.
Upward reviews, where associates assess the partners they work for, follow a separate confidential methodology with reporting thresholds and independent administration. See upward reviews and the confidentiality pledge.
How long does implementation take?
It depends on firm size, the complexity of your workflow, and whether historical records are part of the move. After reviewing your process we give you a scoped implementation plan with milestones worked back from your next cycle date.
Does Artemis use AI?
Artemis offers AI-assisted drafting and consistency checks on written feedback. People review the output before it is used. We show both in a product walkthrough.
Do you publish pricing?
Pricing depends on the number of attorneys evaluated, the workflow scope, and whether SRA-managed services are included. Contact us for a scoped proposal.
Research on associate evaluations
The SRA benchmark →Associate Evaluations at US Law Firms: Criteria, Process and Where They Fail
An associate evaluation is not one instrument. It is four, answering different questions on different terms, and most of what goes wrong is decided before anybody fills in a form.
21 October 2026
The Associate Evaluation Form: What Belongs On It, and What to Leave Off
Most law firm evaluation forms ask for things a reviewer cannot answer and omit the one field that carries the information. Here is what each field is for.
21 October 2026
Building a Competency Framework for a US Law Firm
A competency framework is the thing an evaluation rates against. Most law firms either borrow one from general industry or have none, and both produce ratings nobody can act on.
21 October 2026
Your Billing System Already Knows Who Should Review Whom
Most firms choose reviewers by asking partners to remember. The time records already hold a dated account of who worked with whom, and deriving rater pools from it changes coverage, cycle time and how well a rating survives a compensation discussion.
2 October 2026
What Is a Performance Review Calibration Meeting? (Law Firm Guide)
What is a performance review calibration meeting? A 2026 guide for US law firms on how it works, who attends and how to run one fairly.
31 July 2026
How Associate Evaluations Feed Compensation Decisions
A rating written for development has to survive a different kind of scrutiny once it reaches a compensation discussion. Most of the preparation for that happens months earlier.
22 October 2026
Let's make your next evaluation cycle easier
Show us the process your firm runs today. We will talk through fit, implementation requirements and practical options for your next cycle.