Interested in hearing how associate evaluations are handled at various Big Law firms, particularly regarding the format of the evaluation and information about how you stack up against your peers.
Are you rated on specific skills (e.g., excellent, good, average, needs improvement for writing, verbal communication, etc.)? Given an overall rating (e.g., Kirkland’s 1-5 rating system)? Are senior associates given any written indication of whether they’re on partnership track or not?
For example, at my current firm, your evaluators essentially write only 1-2 paragraphs summarizing your performance. Depending on what they write, it’s difficult to understand how you compare to other associates in your group. Not a big deal for juniors, but for mid-levels and senior associates, it can be difficult to know if you’re legitimately on partnership track or not. (Not everyone at my firm gets a verbal evaluation, and if you do, it’s not always with your practice group leader.)
Big Law Associate Evaluations Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 428551
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Big Law Associate Evaluations
My v15 does it kinda like the shit ivy school grading. Each partner/counsel/associate 3 or more years above you gives a rating for each core skill like analysis, writing, oral advocacy, judgment etc. The ratings are from needs improvement (meaning about to be fired/let go/gently pushed out), good (meaning bad), very good (meaning good) and excellent (meaning very good I guess, idk I don't get too many of those). Also there are some intangibles there too like attituded and whatever that they can rate you on. They also can write a few paragraphs if they want about your work.
Also, associates are HEAVILY encouraged to not give negative reviews to junior associates. Like you'll get a phone call from HR/recruiting/partners if you submit a negative review. Grade inflation I guess. I also believe that once you get to 6th year or something like that they will tell you your 'class rank' among all other people your year. I'm not that senior yet so just what I've heard.
Also, associates are HEAVILY encouraged to not give negative reviews to junior associates. Like you'll get a phone call from HR/recruiting/partners if you submit a negative review. Grade inflation I guess. I also believe that once you get to 6th year or something like that they will tell you your 'class rank' among all other people your year. I'm not that senior yet so just what I've heard.
-
hdr
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Tue May 19, 2020 12:25 pm
Re: Big Law Associate Evaluations
My first firm had a typical 1-5 rating system for various skills, ranging from unacceptable to outstanding. Reviewers also had the option of leaving written comments.
My second firm only solicited written comments for various skills, and placed every associate in a "level" from one to four, with one being for junior associates and four being for the best senior associates. If a senior associate was held at level three it was a sign they weren't ready for partner.
My second firm only solicited written comments for various skills, and placed every associate in a "level" from one to four, with one being for junior associates and four being for the best senior associates. If a senior associate was held at level three it was a sign they weren't ready for partner.
