When lawyers leave a firm, the explanation is usually brief.

“I found a better opportunity.”

“I’m looking for balance.”

“It felt like the right time.”

These answers are polite, professional, and incomplete.

When law firms collect exit feedback confidentially and review it in aggregate, across practice groups, seniority levels, and time a much clearer picture emerges. The same themes appear again and again, regardless of firm size or prestige.

This article explains what exit data really shows, why firms often misinterpret it, and how leaders can use these insights to reduce preventable attrition without creating risk or defensiveness.

What is exit data?

Exit data is structured information collected when an employee leaves an organization.

In law firms, exit data usually comes from:

• confidential exit surveys
• third-party exit interviews
• post-departure questionnaires
• trend analysis across time, role, and practice group

The purpose is not to debate individual decisions.

It is to identify patterns that repeat across departures.

What is an exit interview vs. an exit survey?

An exit interview is a conversation, often conducted by HR or an external interviewer.

An exit survey is a written questionnaire, typically easier to aggregate and analyze.

Law firms tend to get more honest data when:

• confidentiality is explicit
• responses are aggregated before review
• feedback is not attributed to individuals

When lawyers are unsure how feedback will be used, they default to safe answers.

How common is lawyer attrition?

According to NALP, associate attrition in U.S. law firms typically ranges between 18% and 22% annually, with the highest turnover among mid-level associates.

In practical terms:

• roughly 1 in 5 associates leaves each year
• many exits happen after years of training and client exposure

Exit data helps firms understand why that investment does not convert into long-term retention.

Do lawyers leave mainly because of long hours?

No, not by itself.

Exit data consistently shows that lawyers expect demanding workloads. What drives departures is the combination of long hours with:

• unclear expectations
• inconsistent staffing
• delayed or vague feedback
• limited control over development

Workload acts as a stress amplifier, not the root cause.

How much does manager quality affect retention?

More than firm reputation or compensation.

Exit feedback often includes statements like:

“My experience depended entirely on who I worked for.”

When firms analyze exits by practice group or partner cluster, attrition often concentrates around specific teams, not the firm as a whole.

This aligns with findings from Thomson Reuters, which show that clarity, feedback quality, and manager behavior strongly influence retention.

Lawyers do not usually leave “the firm.”

They leave local working environments.

Why does career-path ambiguity show up so often in exit data?

Because uncertainty erodes trust faster than criticism.

Exit data frequently includes comments such as:

• “I didn’t know what was expected.”
• “Standards changed depending on who reviewed me.”
• “Feedback came too late to be useful.”

When associates cannot clearly see:

• how they are evaluated
• how advancement decisions are made
• what progress looks like at each stage

They disengage, even if performance reviews are technically positive.

Does feedback timing really matter?

Yes. Timing matters more than tone.

Exit feedback often points to frustration with:

• feedback delivered months after matters end
• performance reviews that aggregate unrelated issues
• guidance given after decisions are already made

Delayed feedback feels less developmental and more judgmental, especially for mid-level associates.

Do lawyers explicitly say “culture” is the problem?

Rarely.

Instead, culture issues surface indirectly through statements about:

• inconsistent communication
• lack of psychological safety
• discomfort raising concerns
• unclear leadership expectations

When analyzed thematically, these signals often point to trust and safety issues, not perks or policies.

What exit data really tells law firm leaders

Exit interviews do not answer:

“Why did this lawyer leave?”

They answer:

“What makes staying difficult for many lawyers over time?”

Most exits are not surprises.

They are confirmations of signals that appeared much earlier.

Practical takeaway

Exit data is not about stopping all departures.

It is about:

• reducing avoidable attrition
• fixing repeatable system issues
• strengthening trust in performance and feedback processes

Firms that treat exit data as a learning signal, not a judgment, make better leadership and people decisions over time.

Want clearer insight into why lawyers leave, before it becomes attrition?

Start with:

• confidential exit surveys
• structured trend analysis
• integration with engagement and feedback data

Used together, these tools help law firm leaders spot patterns early and act before good lawyers decide to leave.

FAQ

Why do lawyers leave law firms most often?

Most lawyers leave due to a combination of unclear expectations, inconsistent feedback, limited development clarity, and manager-level issues, not hours or pay alone.

Are exit interviews reliable in law firms?

They can be, but only when confidentiality is credible and feedback is reviewed in aggregate. Without those safeguards, responses tend to be cautious and vague.

What do law firms usually get wrong about exit data?

They treat it as individual feedback rather than system feedback. Exit data is most useful when analyzed across time and groups, not case by case.

Can exit data help reduce future attrition?

Yes. When combined with engagement surveys and ongoing feedback, exit data helps firms identify patterns early and address issues before they lead to departures.

Is some level of lawyer attrition normal?

Yes. Some movement is healthy. Exit data helps distinguish between healthy turnover and preventable attrition driven by system breakdowns.

‍