Service · Performance & feedback
Upward reviews for US law firms
Structured, independently administered feedback from associates and staff on the partners who supervise them — designed so people answer honestly and so findings reach partners in a form they can act on.
Who this is for
- Managing partners and management committees
- Chief People Officers and Directors of Professional Development
- Firms running upward feedback for the first time, or replacing an in-house process
The question an associate is really answering is who will see this
When a fourth-year associate is asked to assess the partner who staffs their matters, the honest answer to "who will see this" determines the quality of everything that follows. If the answer is "someone at my firm", the feedback will be diplomatic and of little use.
That is a structural problem, not a communications problem. It is not solved by reassuring people in the invitation email, and it is not solved by a generic HR platform that holds the data inside the firm. It is solved by moving custody of the responses outside the firm entirely.
How a cycle runs
SRA designs the instrument, runs the cycle, chases participation, processes the data and delivers the reports. Your team approves the questionnaire and reads the findings.
- Weeks 1–2Instrument design, competency mapping and firm approval of the questionnaire.
- Week 3Population load and distribution by individual secure link.
- Weeks 3–5Fielding, automated reminders and live participation reporting to the firm.
- Week 6Data aggregation and threshold suppression. Free-text comments reviewed for identifiability.
- Weeks 7–8Report delivery at individual, practice group and firm level, then a findings readout.
What you receive
Individual partner reports
Each reviewee receives their own results with benchmark context, so a score means something on the day it is read.
Practice group rollups
Group-level patterns where response volumes clear the reporting threshold.
Firm-level findings
Themes across the partnership, with the supervisory behaviours that separate the strongest reviewers from the weakest.
Developmental plans
Findings feed a plan for each reviewee, so the cycle ends in a commitment rather than a document.
Readout to leadership
A working session with the people who designed the instrument and read the results.
Confidentiality
How the data is held, in practice
The rules below are the reason participation holds and the reason findings are worth acting on. They are enforced by where the data sits, not by policy alone.
Read the confidentiality pledge →Independent custody
Response data never enters your firm's systems in an identifying way. SRA holds and processes it as an independent party, under a data processing agreement in which your firm remains the controller.
Suppression thresholds
Below a minimum number of responses, a cut is reported in aggregate or withheld entirely rather than estimated.
Comments reviewed before release
Free-text responses are reviewed for identifiability, so no one can be recognised by role, matter or phrasing.
Certified handling
ISO 27001 certified. SOC 2 Type I available under NDA. GDPR Article 28 and CCPA aligned, with SRA as processor and your firm as controller.
Why firms use an independent party
Every figure below is recorded in an evidence register with its definition, source and period. Illustrative figures used elsewhere in the design are excluded here by design.
- 35 years serving US law firms
- Years of continuous operation, 1991 to present.
- 100+ elite Am Law firms as clients
- Count of distinct Am Law-ranked firms that have engaged SRA. Cumulative, not concurrent.
- 100,000+ confidential surveys conducted
- Count of individual survey responses collected.
- 1,000,000+ performance reports delivered
- Count of individual performance reports produced and delivered.
- ISO 27001 certified
- Certified information security management system. Certificate number and scope available on request.
On upward reviews
All insights →What questions should a law firm ask in an upward review?
50 law firm-specific upward review questions across six categories. Use them to evaluate partner supervision, feedback quality, and associate development.
20 August 2026
What is an upward review at a law firm? A practical guide
Upward reviews let associates evaluate partners confidentially. Learn how law firms use them to fix retention problems and develop better supervisors.
20 August 2026
Upward Reviews vs 360 Feedback in Law Firms: Which One Actually Works?'
Upward reviews and 360 feedback aren't the same and law firms often pick the wrong one. Here's how they differ and when to use each.
20 August 2026
Confidential Upward Feedback in Small Law Firms: How to Build Trust That Sticks
Associates in small firms often fear retaliation. Here's how to design a confidential upward feedback system that they'll actually use and trust.
20 August 2026
Mentoring at US Law Firms: Why It Fails Without Upward Reviews 2026 Guide
Most US law firm mentoring programs fail because they collect no data on whether mentors are actually helping. Here’s what upward reviews reveal and fix.
20 August 2026
6 Mistakes Law Firms Make With Upward Feedback (& Fixes)
Upward feedback fails at most US law firms for the same 6 reasons. What goes wrong — and the specific fixes that make associates actually trust it.
20 August 2026