You're losing 22% of your associates this year.
You're going to ask some of them why. They are going to tell you it was the compensation.
They are almost certainly not telling you the full story.
Most exit surveys fail not because attorneys lie, but because the surveys are designed to receive diplomatic answers. The questions are vague, the timing is wrong, the process is administered by the firm's own HR, and associates who still exist in legal networks where reputation matters, give you the safe version.
SRA has designed and administered exit surveys for law firms for over 30 years. The difference between a survey that generates useful data and one that generates polite noise comes down to design, timing, and structural independence.
Below are 40 exit survey questions organized into five thematic sections, followed by the three conditions that determine whether you get honest answers and what to do with them once you have them.
What is a law firm exit survey?
A law firm exit survey is a structured questionnaire administered to departing attorneys to capture candid feedback about their reasons for leaving, experience at the firm, and recommendations for improvement. When designed correctly and administered independently, exit data is typically more honest than engagement survey data because departing attorneys have already made their decision and are no longer managing upward.
Why Exit Data Is Different and More Valuable
Engagement surveys measure current experience. Exit surveys measure the decision to leave, which is a different and often more honest signal.
A departing attorney has already decided your firm comes second to available alternatives. They are no longer protecting their standing. In most cases, they are prepared to tell you things no current associate would ever put in writing.
That candor is an asset, if you capture it correctly. The firms that systematically use exit data to improve retention treat it as a primary intelligence source, not an HR checkbox. For context on what the data shows across the industry, see our post on
The Core Design Problem
The most common failure in exit survey design is asking questions that invite socially acceptable answers.
"Did you feel supported by firm leadership?" invites diplomacy. "How clearly did leadership communicate what it takes to make partner?" invites a specific, usable response.
Timing is equally important. Exit surveys given on the final day, when emotions are acute and attorneys are disengaging from firm systems, produce lower response rates and more guarded answers. Two to four weeks before departure, after the resignation has been processed, is when you get the most useful data.
Key Insight
The single biggest predictor of exit survey quality is not the questions. It is who administers it. Associates know their responses may reach the partners they are describing. An independent survey partner changes what they are willing to say.
Section 1: Why They Left
The most important section, and the most commonly mishandled. Lead with forced-choice options for trend-tracking, then open-ended follow-ups for the real reasons.
1. What was the primary factor in your decision to leave? (Select one)
Compensation · Pace of advancement · Quality or type of work · Leadership or partner relationships · Culture · Personal circumstances · External opportunity pulled me · Other
2. If you are joining another firm, what does that opportunity offer that influenced your decision?
3. What would have had to be different at this firm for you to have chosen to stay?
4. Were there specific incidents or patterns that contributed to your decision? You don't need to name individuals.
5. How long before resigning had you seriously started considering leaving?
Less than 1 month · 1–3 months · 3–6 months · 6–12 months · More than 1 year
Section 2: Feedback Quality and Career Visibility
This section is the most directly connected to retention outcomes. Associates who cannot describe their path to partnership are significantly more likely to leave by year three, a pattern documented in SRA's work across law firms. See also:
6. How clearly did you understand what career advancement at this firm required?
Scale: 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Very clearly)
7. Did you receive performance feedback specific enough to act on?
Scale: 1 (Almost never) to 5 (Consistently)
8. Do you feel your performance was evaluated fairly, looking back?
Scale: 1 (Definitely not) to 5 (Definitely yes)
9. Were promotion criteria communicated to you clearly?
Scale: 1 (Never) to 5 (Always)
10. Did you have a mentor or sponsor who actively supported your development?
Yes, actively · Yes, nominally · No
11. What feedback would have been most useful to receive earlier in your time here?
12. Did you ever request feedback and not receive it? Please describe if relevant.
Section 3: Work Allocation and Matter Quality
BigHand's 2025 research found 37% of matter resourcing decisions are driven by partner preference rather than associate skill, capacity, or career development. Exit surveys surface whether this is a factor at your firm.
13. How fairly was work distributed at this firm?
Scale: 1 (Very unfairly) to 5 (Very fairly)
14. Did you regularly receive assignments that matched your skills and career goals?
Scale: 1 (Rarely) to 5 (Consistently)
15. Were there practice areas or matter types you wanted but didn't receive access to?
16. Did you feel your utilization was appropriate for your career stage?
Scale: 1 (Significantly under/over-utilized) to 5 (Appropriately utilized)
17. How often did work assignments seem to be driven by partner relationships rather than your skills or interests?
Scale: 1 (Very often) to 5 (Rarely)
18. Did staffing decisions contribute to your decision to leave? Please describe if relevant.
Section 4: Culture, Leadership, and Inclusion
Culture questions are the most politically sensitive and the most frequently watered down. They are also the most important, especially given the demographic attrition gaps documented in NALP data. Ask about patterns and structures, not individuals.
19. How would you describe the overall culture at this firm?
20. Did you feel attorneys at your level were treated equitably regardless of background?
Scale: 1 (Definitely not) to 5 (Definitely yes)
21. Did you witness or experience behavior that felt unfair, exclusive, or harmful to firm culture?
Yes · No · Prefer not to say (If yes: willing to describe it generally, without naming individuals?)
22. Did you feel comfortable raising concerns or problems at this firm?
Scale: 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Very comfortable)
23. How would you rate the quality of leadership at this firm?
Scale: 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent)
24. Did the firm's stated values match the day-to-day reality here?
Scale: 1 (Rarely) to 5 (Consistently)
25. What would you change about this firm's culture if you could?
Section 5: Overall Experience and Future Intent
This section captures advocacy intent and employer brand health. The internal eNPS question (question 27) is particularly useful — it gives you a comparable metric across cohorts and over time.
26. Overall, how satisfied were you with your time at this firm?
Scale: 1 (Very dissatisfied) to 5 (Very satisfied)
27. Would you recommend this firm to a law school colleague?
Scale: 1 (Definitely not) to 5 (Definitely yes) [This is your internal departing-eNPS.]
28. Would you consider returning to this firm in the future?
Yes · Possibly · No
29. What is the single most important thing this firm could do to improve retention?
30. Is there anything you wish you had known before joining?
31. Is there anything you'd like firm leadership to hear from you that this survey hasn't covered?
Supplemental Questions for Specific Attrition Patterns
If attrition is concentrated in early-career associates (years 1–3):
32. How well did onboarding prepare you for the actual work?
33. How supported did you feel in your first 12 months?
34. Did you have clarity on expectations from day one?
If attrition shows demographic patterns:
35. Did attorneys with similar backgrounds to yours receive equitable access to high-value work and sponsorship?
36. Did you ever adjust your behavior or presentation based on how you felt you might be perceived?
Open-ended close (always include):
37. What would you tell the next associate who joins this firm?
38. What would you tell managing partners if you knew it would actually be heard?
39. Is there anything you're willing to share now that you wouldn't have said while employed here?
40. Is there anything else you want the firm to know?
The Three Conditions That Determine Candor
Question design is necessary but not sufficient. Three structural conditions determine whether you get honest answers.
- Independence
Surveys administered by the firm's own HR staff produce more diplomatic responses than those managed by an independent third party. Associates in legal networks are acutely aware that attributed responses can have reputational consequences. SRA acts as an independent collecting party, raw data never enters the firm's systems.
- Genuine Structural Anonymity
Aggregated reporting with minimum respondent thresholds, no raw comment attribution, and no identifiable metadata. Anonymity has to be structural, not just promised in a cover email. For the same reason, SRA's upward reviews produce more candid data than internally administered equivalents see.
- Evidence That It Gets Used
Associates who have watched previous surveys disappear won't invest in the current one. Closing the loop, communicating to current attorneys what changed as a result of exit feedback, is both an obligation and a practical driver of future response quality.
What to Do With the Answers
Look for patterns, not incidents
Individual responses are anecdotes. If 60% of departing associates in a year cite promotion opacity, that is an organizational problem, not six individual complaints.
Segment the data
Break responses by cohort year, gender, race, practice group, and office. The pattern in a litigation group may be completely different from the corporate group. Aggregate means solve neither.
Bring themes to leadership, in a usable format
Not a list of complaints. A ranked set of structural factors with frequency data and comparison to industry benchmarks. Designed for decisions, not reading.
Make a visible change and communicate it
The most effective driver of future survey quality is closing the loop visibly. When current associates see that last year's exit feedback produced a real change, they believe the current survey matters.
SRA designs, administers, and analyzes law firm exit surveys as an independent third party, ensuring structural anonymity and the analytical depth that makes the data actionable.
→ srahq.com/services | Exit Survey Program
Frequently Asked Questions
What questions should a law firm exit survey include?
An effective law firm exit survey covers five areas: reasons for leaving, feedback quality and career path clarity, work allocation fairness, culture and inclusion, and overall experience. Generic HR exit surveys usually cover one or two of these areas. The feedback quality and career visibility questions are most directly tied to the structural retention drivers documented in NALP and BigHand research.
How do you get honest answers in a law firm exit survey?
Three structural conditions drive candor: independent administration (not internal HR), genuine anonymity (aggregated reporting, minimum thresholds, no raw attribution), and visible evidence that previous feedback was acted upon. Timing also matters, surveys administered two to four weeks before departure produce more candid responses than those given on the final day.
Should exit surveys be anonymous?
Yes, and the anonymity must be structural, not just stated. In law firm environments, where hierarchies are steep and professional networks are small, associates are acutely aware that attributable responses carry reputational risk. Structural anonymity, meaning independent administration, aggregated reporting, and no identifiable metadata, changes what attorneys are willing to say.
What is a good response rate for a law firm exit survey?
A response rate of 70–80% is achievable with well-designed surveys administered at the right time by an independent party. Response rates below 50% typically indicate design problems, wrong timing, or lack of trust that responses are genuinely confidential.
How often should law firms review exit survey data?
At minimum once per year, with interim reviews if attrition spikes or demographic patterns emerge. Two to three years of trend data is significantly more useful than any single year's snapshot, it shows whether changes the firm has made are actually shifting the numbers.
Sources
- NALP Foundation — Update on Associate Attrition, CY 2023 and CY 2024. nalpfoundation.org
- BigHand — 'Navigating the Million Dollar Problem', August 2025. 800+ law firm leaders. bighand.com
- ALANET — Legal Management Benchmarking, 2024. alanet.org
- Thomson Reuters Institute — Report on the State of the Legal Market, 2026. thomsonreuters.com
.png){kind=small}