Service · Performance & feedback
Downward reviews for US law firms
Downward reviews are performance evaluations of associates, counsel and other professionals by the supervising attorneys and other appropriate evaluators who worked with them. Done well, they draw on everyone who staffed the work, not only the partner whose name sits on the file.
Who this is for
- Managing partners and practice group leaders
- Chief People Officers and Directors of Professional Development
- Firms whose evaluation forms have not changed in a decade
One reviewer, recalled at year end, is not an evaluation
A downward review is attributed by design. The associate is told who wrote it, because a judgment that shapes compensation and progression has to have an author. That is the opposite of an upward review, and it changes what the instrument has to protect against.
What it has to protect against is a single partner writing from memory. The NALP Foundation surveyed 106 leading firms in November 2025 and found supervising attorney comments in every evaluation program. The harder question is how many partners contribute, and on what exposure. An associate who billed 400 hours across six partners and is assessed by one of them has been evaluated on a sixth of their year.
The written half is where it goes wrong quietly. Harvard Business Review research found 76 percent of women's reviews contained negative personality feedback against 2 percent of men's. That is a finding about reviews in general rather than law firms specifically, but the mechanism is the same: unstructured prose invites comment on the person instead of the work. NALP found 30 percent of firms never compare evaluation data across any cohort, so a firm with that pattern has no way of seeing it.
Two different instruments: downward and upward reviews
Firms often run both, sometimes in the same season, and the rules that make one work would break the other. An upward review protects the person answering. A downward review is attributed, and protects the record instead.
| Downward review | Confidential upward review | |
|---|---|---|
| Who answers | Supervising partners, counsel and other evaluators who worked with the reviewee | Associates and staff, about the partners who supervise them |
| Is the author known | Yes. Each review is attributed, and the reviewee is told who assessed them | No. The firm sees findings, not who said what |
| Who can see what | Access is set by role: reviewers see their assignments, the committee sees what it needs to decide, and the reviewee sees what the firm releases | Responses are held by SRA as an independent party. Nobody at the firm has access to individual responses |
| Small groups | Individual reviews are attributed. Only cohort analysis is held to a reporting threshold | Results below the agreed threshold are reported in aggregate or withheld |
| What it feeds | Compensation, progression and development decisions about the reviewee | A partner's development as a supervisor |
How a downward review is structured
Five elements decide whether an evaluation cycle produces a fair record or a pile of forms. Each is a design choice the firm makes before the cycle opens.
Self-evaluation
The associate's own account of the year, against the same competencies the reviewers rate: the matters, the responsibility taken, the development goals. SRA withholds it from reviewers until they have submitted, so it does not anchor their ratings. The gap between self and reviewer view is often the most useful part of the review conversation.
Multiple reviewers
Reviewers are drawn from who supervised the work, usually from matter and hours data, with a threshold so brief exposure is excluded rather than averaged in. Each reviewer rates what they observed. A reviewer who did not see a competency in action should be able to say so instead of guessing.
Templates by level
Most firms use different forms for junior, midlevel and senior associates and for counsel, and sometimes by practice group. Building them from one competency framework keeps results comparable across forms, and scales anchored in observable behavior keep a 4 meaning the same thing from one partner to the next.
Approval before release
Someone with authority reads the assembled ratings and comments before the reviewee does: a practice group leader, an evaluation committee or both. They check for comment on the person rather than the work, resolve conflicting views and approve what is released and what goes to the compensation discussion. Who can see what at each stage is agreed up front.
Reporting
Two audiences. The individual report brings ratings, comments and the self-evaluation together for the review conversation. The committee view shows the distribution by class year and practice group, how each reviewer rates against their group, and cohort comparisons reported in aggregate.
How a cycle runs
A downward cycle is a reviewer-assignment problem before it is a questionnaire problem. Most of the design work happens before anyone is asked to write anything.
- Weeks 1–2Competency framework mapped to practice area and seniority, then approved by the firm. Rating scales anchored in observable behavior rather than adjectives.
- Week 3Reviewer assignment from matter and hours data, so each reviewee is assessed by the partners who actually supervised the work. Self-assessments open at the same time.
- Weeks 3–5Reviewers complete, with follow-up to anyone outstanding and completion reporting to the firm while the cycle is open. Written comments prompted against specific competencies rather than a blank box.
- Week 6Aggregation, outlier flagging and cohort analysis by class year, practice group, office, gender and race where the firm collects it.
- Weeks 7–8Calibration pack to practice group leaders, then individual reports and a findings readout to leadership.
What you receive
Individual evaluation reports
Ratings, written comment and self-assessment against the same competencies, with benchmark context.
Self versus reviewer gap analysis
Where an associate rates themselves well above or below their reviewers, which is usually the most useful conversation in the cycle.
Calibration pack
How each partner's ratings sit against their practice group, so a consistently generous or harsh reviewer can be shown it.
Cohort analysis
Results compared across class year, practice group, office and, where the firm collects it, gender and race.
Development plans
Findings carried into a plan for each reviewee, with owners and a revisit date.
Readout to leadership
A working session on what the distribution shows about the firm, not only about individuals.
What changes when the evaluation is built rather than inherited
The form most firms still use
An SRA downward review
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 →Attributed by design
A downward review is not anonymous, and it should not be. The reviewee is told which partners assessed them, because a judgment used in compensation and progression decisions has to have an author who can be asked about it.
Independent administration
SRA holds and processes the responses as an independent party under a data processing agreement, with your firm as controller. That keeps the record intact and the process consistent across reviewers, rather than sitting in a partner's inbox until the deadline.
Self-assessments held until reviewers submit
An associate's self-assessment is not visible to their reviewers until those reviewers have filed, so the rating is not anchored to what the associate said about themselves.
Cohort analysis reported in aggregate
Individual reviews are attributed. Analysis across class year, office, gender and race is reported at the group level, against a threshold agreed before the cycle opens.
Certified handling
ISO 27001 certified. SOC 2 Type I report 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+ Am Law firms served since 1991
- 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 downward reviews and evaluations
All insights →Evaluating a First-Year Associate, and the Checkpoints Before It
A first-year associate meets the firm’s evaluation system before they have done enough work for it to say anything. Checkpoints, rather than a single annual review, are what the first year needs.
22 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
What Is the Difference Between a Performance Evaluation and a Performance Review at a US Law Firm?
How US law firms should separate the coaching conversation from the formal evaluation record, with 2025 NALP Foundation data and a fix list.
4 May 2026
Want Better Performance? Start with Better Downward Reviews
Elevate your law firm's culture with downward reviews. Learn how structured feedback from senior lawyers can foster real-time growth and support for junior asso
24 July 2025
Why Downward Reviews in Law Firms Fail—and How to Fix Them
Uncover the pitfalls of downward reviews in law firms and explore actionable solutions to enhance feedback, boost retention, and drive associate development.
24 April 2025
How Downward Reviews Shape Growth and Retention
Explore the impact of structured downward reviews on associate development and retention, and why they are essential for a supportive law firm culture.
24 April 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
Artemis Software
Your team runs its own cycles in Artemis by SRA, with onboarding and standard support. Your team owns administration and follow-through.
Explore Artemis →Artemis + SRA Managed
SRA handles configuration, administration, follow-up and reporting under an agreed scope, on the same platform. 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.