The questions you ask determine the data you get. Generic questions produce generic answers. Questions built for law firm dynamics matter-based work, steep power differentials, career development pressure. produce data you can actually use.
Below are 50 upward review questions organized into six categories. Each is written for a law firm context and tested for clarity, sensitivity, and actionability. Use them as a starting point or download the full PDF template to deploy directly in your next review cycle.
How to use this question bank
A typical upward review uses 15–25 questions, not all 50. Select based on what your firm most needs to understand right now.
Focus: retention
Weight toward supervision quality + career development
These categories surface the patterns most directly linked to voluntary associate attrition.
Focus: partner development
Weight toward feedback, delegation + respect
These pinpoint specific behaviors a partner can address through coaching or a development plan.
Scale
1–5 agreement scale throughout
1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree. Open-text questions are marked [Open].
Anonymity note
For practice groups with fewer than five associates per partner, suppress individual question-level results and report only overall scores. This protects respondent identity while still delivering actionable information. See SRA's anonymity framework for technical thresholds.
Category 1
Supervision quality: 10 questions
These questions assess whether the supervising attorney provides the day-to-day direction and support that lets associates do their best work.
1. This partner gives me clear direction on assignments before I begin work.
2. I understand what this partner expects of my work on any given matter.
3. This partner is accessible when I need guidance or have questions.
4. This partner responds to my requests for input or review in a timely way.
5. When priorities shift, this partner communicates changes to me clearly and in advance.
6. I feel comfortable asking this partner for clarification when I'm uncertain about a task.
7. This partner gives me enough context about the client and matter to do my work effectively.
8. This partner respects my time and avoids creating unnecessary urgency or last-minute demands.
9. Working with this partner, I have a clear sense of how my work fits into the broader matter or client relationship.
10. Overall, this partner provides effective day-to-day supervision. Open: What is one thing this partner could do differently to improve their supervision?
Category 2
Feedback and development: 10 questions
These questions assess whether the supervising attorney actively invests in associate growth.
11. This partner provides feedback on my work that is specific and actionable.
12. This partner gives me feedback promptly after significant work product is delivered.
13. The feedback I receive from this partner helps me improve my legal skills.
14. This partner takes time to explain what I did well, not just what needs improvement.
15. This partner recognizes and acknowledges strong performance on my part.
16. I feel this partner has a genuine interest in my professional development.
17. This partner has discussed my career goals with me at least once in the past review period.
18. This partner makes introductions or creates opportunities that support my career development.
19. I receive feedback from this partner in a way that feels respectful and constructive.
20.I believe working with this partner is making me a better lawyer. Open: What one change would have the biggest positive impact on your development?
Category 3
Delegation and workload management : 8 questions
These questions assess whether work is delegated in a way that supports development and fair distribution.
21. The work assigned to me by this partner is appropriate for my experience level.
22. This partner delegates work that stretches my skills without leaving me unsupported.
23. My workload from this partner is manageable within reasonable working hours.
24. When I am overloaded, this partner responds and helps me reprioritize.
25. This partner delegates responsibility to me and does not micromanage my execution.
26. I am given meaningful work by this partner, not just administrative or low-complexity tasks.
27. This partner considers my existing workload before assigning new matters.
28. I feel that work is distributed fairly among associates on this partner's matters.
Category 4
Respect and professionalism : 8 questions
These questions assess the interpersonal and cultural quality of the supervision relationship.
29. This partner treats me with respect in all professional interactions.
30. This partner does not speak negatively about me to other colleagues.
31. This partner behaves consistently, I do not experience unpredictable moods or reactions.
32. This partner takes credit for my work appropriately and acknowledges my contributions.
33. I feel psychologically safe raising concerns or disagreements with this partner.
34. This partner does not ask me to perform tasks that are outside my professional role.
35. I would describe the working environment created by this partner as collegial and professional.
36. I would feel comfortable raising a workplace concern directly with this partner.
Category 5
Client and matter involvement : 6 questions
These questions assess whether associates receive appropriate exposure and development opportunities on client matters.
37. This partner gives me direct client contact appropriate to my experience level.
38. This partner prepares me before client interactions and debriefs me afterward.
39. I have opportunities to develop client relationship skills working under this partner.
40. This partner actively supports my involvement in pitches or business development activities.
41. I receive appropriate credit for my contributions on matters supervised by this partner.
42. Working with this partner, I am gaining the client exposure I need to build my own practice over time.
Category 6
Overall assessment : 8 questions + open text
These summary questions capture overall satisfaction and surface themes not covered in the specific categories above. Include at least two or three open-text questions in every survey.
43. Overall, I am satisfied with my experience working under this partner.
44. I would actively choose to work with this partner on future matters.
45. I believe this partner is effective at developing junior lawyers.
46. I would recommend this partner as a mentor to other associates.
47. My work experiences with this partner make me more likely to remain at this firm.
48. This partner contributes positively to the firm's culture.
49. I believe this partner is well suited to a leadership role within the firm.
50. Compared to other partners I have worked with, this partner's supervision is above average.
Open What does this partner do particularly well as a supervisor and developer of talent?
Open What is the single most important change this partner could make to improve your experience working with them?
Open Is there anything else about your experience with this partner that you would like firm leadership to understand?
Anonymity threshold
For firms with fewer than five associates per partner, suppress individual question-level data and share only overall scores. This protects respondent identity while still delivering actionable information. SRA's reporting protocols handle this automatically reach out if you want to discuss the technical thresholds for your firm size.
What to do with the data after the survey
Collecting data is the straightforward part. What firms do next determines whether the program produces change or just generates resentment from associates who gave honest feedback and saw nothing happen.
1. Share results individually with each partner
Deliver aggregated results, not raw responses with firm-wide benchmarks where available. Frame delivery as developmental, not punitive. Partners who receive results with context act on them; partners who receive results with no framing get defensive.
2. Look at category scores, not just overall averages
A partner averaging 3.2 across all questions signals a broad problem. A partner averaging 4.8 on supervision quality but 2.1 on "gives timely feedback" has one specific, addressable issue. Category-level analysis produces actionable interventions; overall averages don't.
3. Close the loop visibly with associates
Associates don't need to know every detail of partner conversations. But they do need to see that results were reviewed, that follow-up conversations happened, and that the data matters. Firms that skip this step see participation drop sharply in the next cycle.
Sources and further reading
- NALP 2023 Associate Attrition Report — national data on voluntary law firm turnover and its drivers
- Harvard Business Review: The Feedback Fallacy (2019) — evidence on what makes feedback produce development outcomes
- SRA: Upward review programs for law firms — methodology, reporting design, and case studies
- SRA resource library — sample survey templates, reporting guides, and implementation checklists
.png){kind=small}