Technically, yes, most general HR platforms can be configured to collect upward feedback. But "can it collect responses" is the wrong question. The question US law firms should ask is whether associates will answer honestly when the platform holding their feedback is administered by the same firm that controls their work, bonus, and partnership track. On that question, generic HR software almost always fails — not because of a missing feature, but because of where the data lives.
Why This Question Matters at US Law Firms in 2026
Upward reviews exist to surface one thing general performance data can't: which supervising partners are quietly driving associates out. And the cost of missing that signal has never been higher. According to BigHand's 2025 "Navigating the Million Dollar Problem" report, based on Q1 2025 responses from 800+ senior law firm leaders across North America and the UK, firm-wide lawyer attrition reached 27%, and replacing a single third-year associate now costs over $1 million in lost billable revenue, recruitment, and training. The same report found the share of associates leaving the legal profession entirely nearly doubled — from 9% in 2024 to roughly 16% in 2025.
The NALP Foundation's latest Update on Associate Attrition, released in April 2026 and drawing on 141 US and Canadian firms, adds the timing detail: 83% of associates who left in 2025 did so within five years of hire — an all-time high, up from 80% the year before. Attrition was steepest at firms with 100 or fewer attorneys (24%).
Upward reviews are one of the few levers that detect this problem while there's still time to act — but only if the data is candid. A polite, firm-administered upward review program tells leadership exactly what it wants to hear, right up until the associates stop showing up.
What Is an Upward Review — and Why Is It Different From Other Feedback?
An upward review is confidential feedback that flows up the hierarchy: associates evaluating the partners who supervise them. Unlike a standard performance review (partner-to-associate) or a 360 (feedback from all directions), the upward review's entire value depends on the reviewer feeling safe to be honest about someone with direct power over their career.
That power asymmetry is far more extreme in a US law firm than in a typical corporate org chart. A corporate employee critiquing a manager is taking a risk. An associate critiquing the partner who controls their matter assignments, their bonus, and their path to partnership is taking a far larger one. This is why upward reviews are the single hardest feedback instrument to run honestly — and the one most exposed to where the data is stored.
Can Generic HR Software Technically Run an Upward Review?
Yes, with configuration. Platforms like Lattice, PerformYard, BambooHR, 15Five, and Culture Amp all support custom review forms, anonymity toggles, and 360-style modules that can be pointed "upward." If your only requirement is collecting associate responses about partners, any of them will do it.
The problems appear at the three points that actually determine whether the data is usable:
1. Data custody. On a generic HR platform, the raw response data lives inside an instance the firm contracts and administers. Anonymity is a setting, controlled by the same administrators associates are being asked to critique. Experienced associates understand this — and moderate accordingly.
2. Small-group exposure. In a six-person practice group, "anonymous" feedback is rarely anonymous in practice. Without enforced minimum-response thresholds and thematic aggregation before anything reaches a partner, associates can be identified by context — and they know it.
3. Generic frameworks. Off-the-shelf competency templates weren't built for the partner–associate relationship, matter-based work, or partnership-track criteria. The legal adaptation falls entirely on the firm's HR team.
Comparison: Generic HR Software vs Purpose-Built Upward Reviews
Why "Anonymity Settings" Aren't the Same as Anonymous
Here is the distinction that decides whether an upward review program works: anonymity as a feature toggle vs anonymity as a structural guarantee.
A feature tggle says "we've set responses to anonymous" inside a system the firm owns. A structural guarantee means the raw data physically never enters the firm's systems — it's collected, held, and aggregated by an independent third party, and only themed, anonymized output ever reaches firm leadership. Associates can tell the difference, and they respond accordingly. When the data lives outside the firm, candor goes up. When it lives inside, responses drift toward the diplomatically safe range no matter what the settings say.
💡 Key Insight: The gap between honest upward reviews and useless ones is rarely explained by question design or software features. It's explained by data custody. If associates believe firm administrators could access individual responses, a meaningful share will self-censor — and the program produces exactly the falsely-positive data that lets a problem partner keep driving attrition unseen.
SRA designs and administers upward review programs exclusively for US law firms — with raw data held externally so associates actually tell the truth.
If your firm is running upward reviews on a generic HR platform and the results look suspiciously positive, the platform may be the reason. → Talk to SRA: srahq.com/contact | Upward Reviews: srahq.com/services#upward
Frequently Asked Questions
Can HR software do upward reviews?
Yes, technically. Most general HR platforms — Lattice, PerformYard, BambooHR, 15Five, Culture Amp — can be configured to collect associate feedback about partners using custom forms or a 360 module. The limitation isn't whether they can collect responses; it's whether those responses are honest. Because generic platforms store raw data inside a firm-administered system, associates at US law firms — who are assessing real career risk before criticizing a supervising partner — tend to moderate their answers toward diplomatically safe responses. The result is data that looks fine and tells leadership very little.
Why don't associates give honest feedback on HR software?
Because the partner being reviewed controls the associate's work allocation, bonus, and partnership prospects, and the feedback data lives in a system the firm administers. Even with anonymity settings enabled, associates know firm administrators control the platform. In small practice groups, they also know they can be identified by context. Rational risk assessment leads to self-censorship. Honest upward feedback requires the raw data to sit outside the firm's reach entirely.
What's the difference between anonymity settings and structural anonymity?
Anonymity settings are a configuration inside a system the firm owns and controls. Structural anonymity means the raw responses never enter the firm's systems at all — an independent third party collects, holds, and aggregates them, and only themed, non-attributable output reaches leadership. The first is a promise; the second is an architecture. Associates respond honestly to the second far more reliably than the first.
Should a law firm use a dedicated upward review service instead of HR software?
If the goal is genuinely candid upward feedback — the kind that identifies which partners are driving attrition — a dedicated, externally administered service produces materially better data than a self-administered HR platform. If upward reviews are a lower-stakes, check-the-box exercise, generic software may be sufficient. The deciding question is how much you need the data to be true.
Which is the best tool for upward reviews at a law firm?
For US law firms specifically, the best fit is a purpose-built, managed upward review program with external data custody, legal competency frameworks, and small-group anonymity protections — not a general HR platform retrofitted for the task. SRA provides this as a managed service built exclusively for US law firms since 1987.
Can generic HR software handle upward reviews? It can run the mechanics. What it can't do is make associates believe their feedback is safe — and at a US law firm, that belief is the entire ballgame. When the raw data lives inside a firm-administered system, honest upward feedback quietly evaporates, and leadership is left with reassuring numbers while attrition climbs. If upward reviews are a formality at your firm, software will do. If they're meant to actually surface the partners driving your $1M-per-departure attrition, the architecture — external data custody, legal-specific design, structural anonymity — matters more than any feature list.
.png){kind=small}