Annual reviews used to be “good enough” in law firms because time moved slower.

Associates stayed longer.

Matters were less fragmented across offices.

Development happened by osmosis: proximity, repetition, and partner observation.

Now, the ground has shifted.

Lawyers are more mobile, expectations are sharper, and the gap between work performed and feedback received is costing firms clarity and trust. In 2025, Law360 Pulse reported lawyer satisfaction at its lowest level since the survey began, with lawyers less satisfied with billable expectations, advancement opportunities, and collegiality than in prior years.

(Source: https://www.cooley.com/-/media/cooley/pdf/law360-pulse-lawyer-satisfaction-survey-2025.pdf)

At the same time, lateral movement is heating up again. Reuters reported lateral associate moves up 15% year-over-year, with culture now outweighing compensation for many early-career lawyers.
(Source: https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/associate-market-heats-up-its-essential-attorneys-be-strategic-about-cultural--pracin-2026-02-10/)

In that environment, a once-a-year review isn’t just outdated. It’s structurally misaligned.

What an “annual review” is actually trying to do in a law firm

Most annual review cycles try to accomplish too many jobs at once:

• Summarize performance across many matters
• Normalize feedback from multiple partners
• Signal promotion readiness
• Feed compensation committee decisions
• Address developmental gaps (often retroactively)

The issue is not that firms review annually.

The issue is relying on the annual review as the primary mechanism for performance accuracy and development.

Why annual reviews fail in law firms

1) Law firm performance happens in matters, but annual reviews happen in calendars

A year-end review asks partners to compress months of shifting work into a single narrative.

But most associates don’t work for “a manager.” They work across:

• multiple partners
• multiple matters
• multiple working styles
• different standards of what “good” looks like

So the annual review ends up measuring memory—not performance.

This misfit shows up downstream as frustration about advancement clarity. In 2025, Law360 Pulse reported lawyers were less satisfied with opportunities for advancement than at any point in the survey’s history.
(Source: https://www.cooley.com/-/media/cooley/pdf/law360-pulse-lawyer-satisfaction-survey-2025.pdf)

When advancement feels unclear, annual review feedback becomes higher-stakes—and more contested.

2) Recency bias becomes policy

In annual-only systems, recent matters weigh more heavily than early-year work.

That creates predictable distortions:

• The last deal matters more than the best deal
• The last friction matters more than the consistent reliability
• One intense month can overshadow eleven steady ones

For associates, the result is not just frustration—it’s uncertainty. And uncertainty is a retention risk.

3) Lateral mobility punishes slow feedback loops

The market doesn’t wait for your year-end cycle.

Reuters reported the associate market has heated up again, with lateral moves rising 15% year-over-year.
(Source: https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/associate-market-heats-up-its-essential-attorneys-be-strategic-about-cultural--pracin-2026-02-10/)

When the market moves faster, firms need performance systems that:

• surface issues earlier
• reinforce growth signals sooner
• reduce “silent drift” in engagement

Annual reviews are structurally late.

4) Annual reviews over-index on compensation and under-deliver on development

When review season is tightly coupled to comp, partners and associates both behave differently:

• feedback becomes guarded
• development gets reduced to “keep doing what you’re doing”
• high-potential associates don’t get specific coaching early enough to improve

This is where annual reviews become expensive: not in time, but in missed development.

5) Associate expectations have changed and culture is now a decision factor

Major, Lindsey & Africa’s Gen Z associate research found:

• 74% prioritized culture in choosing a firm
• 31% said their experience at the firm did not match expectations
• 45% felt law school did not adequately prepare them for practice, increasing the importance of on-the-job development systems.
  (Source: https://www.mlaglobal.com/en/about-us/press-releases/beyond-tradition-genzs-approach-to-big-law)

The underlying study (PDF) also reports the same culture preference and expectation gap, based on 546 responses in early 2024.
(Source: https://www.leopardsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2024-Beyond-Tradition_Gen-Zs-Approach-to-Big-Law.pdf)

When associates choose—and leave—based on culture, annual reviews that feel opaque or inconsistent actively work against retention.

What works instead (and still preserves an annual cycle)

The goal is not “more reviews.”

It’s more accurate signal capture throughout the year, so the annual conversation becomes a summary of evidence, not a negotiation of memory.

1) Matter-close feedback: short, structured, and fast

A 2–3 minute capture after a matter milestone:

• improves accuracy
• removes reliance on recall
• makes feedback actionable while the work is fresh

2) Multi-partner aggregation: patterns over opinions

Instead of “who said what,” firms need:

• repeatable themes across matters
• consistent strengths/gaps
• outlier handling (without letting outliers dominate)

3) Separate development conversations from comp decisions

Keep the annual compensation governance.

But run development on a different track:

• clearer coaching
• less defensiveness
• earlier course-correction

4) Build a real view of “advancement readiness”

Lawyers in 2025 reported lower satisfaction with advancement opportunities, and higher intent to seek other jobs, according to Law360 Pulse.
(Source: https://www.cooley.com/-/media/cooley/pdf/law360-pulse-lawyer-satisfaction-survey-2025.pdf)

A modern system gives associates a clearer answer to:

“What does better look like in the next 90 days?”

Why this matters now (beyond HR)

The broader profession is openly signaling that talent retention and readiness are central challenges.

The International Bar Association’s 2025 Future of Legal Services survey report highlights talent retention among the key issues facing the profession.
(Source: https://www.ibanet.org/document?id=Future-of-Legal-Services-Report-2025)

Meanwhile, Best Lawyers’ 2025 Legal Outlook Survey found 87% of respondents cited adapting to new technology as the top priority—reflecting accelerating change and pressure on how firms train and develop lawyers.
(Source: https://www.bestlawyers.com/article/2025-legal-outlook-lawyer-survey-results/6477)

Annual-only reviews were built for slower systems.

Law firms aren’t slow anymore.

FAQ

Do annual reviews have any place in law firms?

Yes. annual reviews still matter for compensation and promotion governance. They just can’t be the only performance mechanism.

What should replace annual-only reviews?

Matter-close feedback + multi-partner aggregation + separate development check-ins. Keep the annual cycle as a summary, not the engine.

What’s the fastest change a firm can make without overhauling everything?

Add structured matter-close feedback prompts for key matters/practice groups and roll them into the annual narrative.

If your firm is rethinking how performance reviews operate, it may be time to examine whether your current system reflects how legal work actually happens.

SRA works with law firms to design structured, evidence-based performance systems built for partnership environments.

Explore how leading firms are modernizing performance at srahq.com.

‍