Comparisons need not be odious: Assessing and rating lawyers

Most lawyers are generally reluctant to score, grade or rate their people for fear of a high or low score affecting performance. Ratings tend to look at the achievement of measurable objectives or key performance targets rather than the value added to the firm. But, these are not the only factors that influence success.

Even when a balanced scorecard approach is used, there are many models for an overall assessment. Where firms have achieved systematic assessment processes, they seem to fall into one of six main types.

1. Simple rating

Under this approach, lawyers are rated in overall terms, typically on a four to eight-point scale from ‘excellent’ downwards. The median point defines average performance and, above this point, partners are doing better than expected. Some firms take trouble to analyse ‘average’ performance by examining the performance of the whole group of partners and establishing a middle point.

2. Nine-box matrix

Another method is to categorise partners or associates on a nine-box matrix that matches effort with overall contribution. There is no attempt to mark or score each area on the balanced scorecard or critical area of performance. Instead, an overall rating is made based on performance and the value of the lawyer’s contribution to the firm’s progress. There is no attempt to create a prioritised league table, and it would be perfectly possible for every partner to be rated as excellent or in
the top band.

3. Overall score

Under this model, each of the critical areas of performance are scrutinised and rated, as with the simple rating method. The grades attained by each partner in each area are then converted into an overall score, so that partners can be banded
by their scores.

Some degree of subjective moderation typically takes place to ensure that bandings have achieved overall fairness. There is often some intuitive forced
ranking involved in setting both bandings and points.

In some models, one or more performance areas are weighted to give a higher score, although care has to be taken to ensure this is not disproportionate. A high weighting in one category means that a partner could do well by focusing on only a few critical areas of performance but, if all are important, partners should perform to minimum expectations in each area.

4. Forced ranking

Under a forced ranking approach, partners are placed in one of a number of levels in each of the critical areas of performance, relative to their peers.

One such approach places lawyers into four equal quartiles; only 25 per cent of the group can be in any one of the quartiles. Put bluntly, the firm has to define the 25 per cent who are the worst performers and who will therefore populate the bottom quartile.

The argument in favour of forced ranking is that it creates a true meritocracy by differentiating lawyers on the basis of the articulated criteria required for success in the firm.

5. Weighted scoring

Allocating scores, rather than banded ratings, has never proved easy within law firms, but some have introduced this successfully. Points are allocated to each of the balanced scorecard areas, with some elements of weighting. If, say, 40 points are allowed for financial management, these can be divided up to allow a possible 10 points each for revenue, chargeable hours, management of lock-up and contribution to team performance. Lawyers can then be marked in each area and the scores aggregated
on similar lines to the third model.

6. Overall judgement

The most popular method of assessing lawyers relies on a group of trusted individuals weighing up all the evidence and data and then reaching some overall conclusions. The judgement is made holistically rather than atomistically. There is no fixed weighting or scores, as the thrust of this approach is to produce a qualitative assessment, not an entirely quantitative one.

Cultural fit

None of these models are either right or wrong. Some firms, for example, love the forced ranking approach, while others are horrified by the perceived brutality of it. Which model (or variant of models) is used will depend on the culture, context, size and strategy of the firm. But, all rely on honesty, transparency and careful collection and monitoring of as much data and as many metrics and measures as can be easily obtained.

Any system of rating or scoring has to be not only fair but also perceived as such. In part, this is affected by the credibility of the firm, its management and its values. It is also down to the assessment being properly and professionally conducted, which can take up a huge amount of management time.

Nick Jarrett-Kerr advises law firms worldwide on strategy, governance and leadership development
(www.jarrett-kerr.com)