Partner evaluations
Partner evaluations for your compensation committee
SRA designs and administers partner evaluations for law firm compensation committees. Partner self-assessments, confidential peer and associate input, and client feedback where you want it, collected in Artemis and reported to the committee alongside the financial record it already reviews.
The committee already has the financial record
Compensation committees review origination, working attorney hours and realization for every partner. Those figures are reliable and comparable. What most committees do not have in the same form is evidence about how a partner supervises associates, works with other partners, and looks after the clients they share.
Without it, that part of the decision is made from partner memos and from what committee members have seen for themselves. Associates who could describe a partner’s supervision are rarely asked, and when they are asked inside the firm, they answer cautiously. A structured evaluation collects that evidence the same way for every partner, before the committee meets.
Four sources of evidence, chosen by your firm
Firms can start with self-assessment and associate input and add peer and client input in later cycles. Criteria can differ for income partners, junior equity partners and senior equity partners.
Partner self-assessment
Each partner writes against the firm’s criteria, with specific matters and examples. Attributed, and read by the committee as the partner’s own account.
Peer partner input
Other partners on collaboration, cross-selling, client handovers and work for the firm as a whole. Collected confidentially and reported above the agreed threshold.
Associate input
An upward review covering supervision, feedback, work allocation and development. Responses are held by SRA, outside the firm, and reported only above the agreed threshold.
How upward reviews workClient input
Interviews with selected clients about the relationship, the team and how matters were run. Optional, and limited to the relationships the committee selects.
Client feedback interviewsWhat the evaluation covers
The criteria are agreed with the committee before the cycle opens. These five areas are where we start, because the financial record says least about them.
- Leadership and associate development
- Supervision, timeliness and quality of feedback, and whether associates who work for the partner develop and stay.
- Client relationships
- How far each relationship extends beyond the partner: other partners introduced, associates on the client team, and how a transition would go.
- Business development
- Pipeline activity, referrals and cross-selling, measured against what is expected at the partner’s stage.
- Mentoring
- Advocacy for associates in promotion and compensation discussions, and introductions to clients ahead of a formal relationship.
- Matter management
- Staffing, budgets and deadlines, and how scope changes are handled with the client.
How a partner evaluation cycle runs
Partner cycles run in Artemis, on the same platform as associate and staff evaluations, with a timetable worked back from the committee’s meeting date.
Design
Agree the criteria for each partner tier, the inputs, and the reporting threshold for every confidential input. The timetable is set against the committee’s meeting date.
Assign
Raters are drawn from the people who worked with each partner during the year, which matter and hours data can establish. Light contact is excluded.
Collect
Partners complete self-assessments and raters complete their forms in Artemis, with automated reminders when something is outstanding. SRA follows up on response rates.
Report
Reports pass through the approval steps your firm sets before release. The committee receives its report ahead of the meeting, and each partner receives their own.
Access is set by role. Self-assessments are attributed. Peer and associate responses are held by SRA, and the firm sees them only as results reported above the threshold, with written comments reviewed for anything that could identify the author.
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.
What the committee receives, and what each partner receives
The committee and each partner receive separate reports, drawn from the same data.
Running associate or staff evaluations as well? Associate and counsel evaluations and staff evaluations run on the same platform.
Law-firm experience behind the evidence
SRA has run confidential feedback programs for US law firms since 1991, including the upward reviews and 360s that a partner evaluation draws on. Independent administration lets associates and peers answer about a partner without the firm seeing who said what.
See upward reviews, 360-degree feedback, or 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.
Research on partner evaluation
The SRA benchmark →Partner Performance Review: How US Law Firms Evaluate Equity Partners in 2026
Evaluating equity partners is structurally different from associate reviews. Here's how US law firms measure partner performance honestly — and what to do w
24 April 2026
Why Do Most US Law Firms Get Partner Performance Reviews Wrong, and What Should Managing Partners Do About It in 2026?
Why most US law firms get partner performance reviews wrong, what to measure, how to do it anonymously, and what “keeping the partners we want” really requires.
15 May 2026
Partner Upward Reviews: A Case Study in Resetting How a Firm Supervises
The question the managing partner asked was which partners were costing the firm associates. Nobody in the room could answer it, and the firm had been running its own engagement survey for four years.
13 September 2026
10 Upward Review Questions Every US Law Firm Should Ask
10 upward review questions US law firms should ask partners in 2026 — to surface supervision quality, feedback gaps, and associate.
29 April 2025
Connecting Your Billing System to Associate, Staff and Partner Reviews
Every billed hour records who worked with whom, on which matter and for how long. Connected to the review cycle, that record decides who reviews each associate, paralegal and partner, and gives next year’s goals something to be measured against.
30 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
Questions compensation committees ask
Does the committee see individual associate or peer responses?
No. SRA holds those responses outside the firm. The committee sees results reported above the threshold agreed before the cycle opens, and written comments after they have been reviewed for identifying detail. Where a group of raters is too small to meet the threshold, results are reported at practice group level or withheld.
How is this different from a partner upward review?
An upward review asks associates about the partners they work for, and can run on its own for development. A partner evaluation for a compensation committee uses upward input as one source among several, adds self-assessment, peer and client input, and reports to the committee against criteria it has agreed.
Can income partners and equity partners be evaluated differently?
Yes. Criteria, inputs and rater groups are set per tier. For example, a partner in the first years of equity might be assessed on building a practice and a team, and a senior equity partner on succession for their clients and people.
How does this sit alongside origination and billing figures?
The committee report keeps feedback in its own section, separate from the financial figures. Where your billing system is connected, matter data can also show how many people a partner supervised and for how long, so supervision feedback can be read against the partner’s actual load. See connecting billing systems to performance reviews.
Can the results be used for development as well as compensation?
Yes. Each partner receives their own report. Your firm decides who discusses it with them and how the development conversation is kept apart from the compensation decision.
When should we start, relative to the committee meeting?
Work back from the meeting date. Design and rater selection come first, then a collection window, then report preparation and your firm’s approval steps. We set the timetable in scoping so the committee has its report with time to read it.
How is pricing determined?
By the number of partners evaluated, which inputs are included, and the reporting the committee needs. Contact us for a proposal scoped to your firm.
Plan your next partner evaluation cycle
Tell us when your compensation committee meets, how partners are evaluated today, and what the committee wants to see. We will propose the inputs, criteria and timetable for your next cycle.