How involved are associates in the review process at your firm? Forum

[DougEvans789]

It’s always seemed a little odd to me that associates often review other associates (e.g. senior reviewing junior) because it’s not at all clear to me that the reviewer would necessarily be any good at his/her own job and thus might not be well suited to evaluating others. What do others think? Do associates review other associates at your firm? Do those reviews matter?

[nixy]

Why don’t you think a senior associate is in a position to evaluate a junior they’ve worked with? Are partners somehow magically better at this? Do you have to be good at your job actually to evaluate others?

[BLPartner]

Partners are often not going to be interacting with junior associates enough to be able to effectively review their work, because the more senior associates are serving as filters (if they're doing their jobs appropriately). If anything, senior associates are better-positioned to provide legitimate reviews, and it is often the case that partners have to lean on senior associates' impressions in doing their own reviews. Partners put an amount of weight on senior associates' impressions commensurate with their trust in the senior associates' judgment and ability, so it's not like we're just blindly reading reviews from "still here because s/he has a pulse and we need documents churned" senior associate 4Z and assuming they're accurate.

[Anonymous User]

if anything, I would say the opposite

the dozens and dozens of hours you work on a matter during hectic times are mostly with the midlevel and/or senior associate. the person best qualified to speak on a junior's aptitude, responsiveness and attitude is probably the midlevel associate, or their most immediate supervisor.

[Kikero]

Partners are often not going to be interacting with junior associates enough to be able to effectively review their work, because the more senior associates are serving as filters (if they're doing their jobs appropriately). If anything, senior associates are better-positioned to provide legitimate reviews, and it is often the case that partners have to lean on senior associates' impressions in doing their own reviews. Partners put an amount of weight on senior associates' impressions commensurate with their trust in the senior associates' judgment and ability, so it's not like we're just blindly reading reviews from "still here because s/he has a pulse and we need documents churned" senior associate 4Z and assuming they're accurate.

The point about weighing reviews based on the reviewer’s reputation is a good one. And also not only limited to associate reviewers. At my firm, at least, as you become a more senior associate you want to make sure you are getting positive reviews from well regarded and important partners as well, as those reviews carry more weight than reviews from more junior partners. Additionally, there was a partner who recently retired at my firm who was known for giving everyone glowing reviews. Even though he was an important partner from a business perspective, a positive review from him was not seen as particularly valuable because he gave them out like candy. They don’t just average all of the review scores together and assign you a rating based on that without taking into account who your reviewers are.

[DougEvans789]

Why don’t you think a senior associate is in a position to evaluate a junior they’ve worked with? Are partners somehow magically better at this? Do you have to be good at your job actually to evaluate others?

Maybe I’m wrong, but yeah, I would have assumed the typical partner is a good bit better at being a lawyer than the typical senior, especially in this climate where we’ve had years of firms struggling to retain people. Just seems like it’d suck to be a good junior reviewed by a not-so-good senior and to get a worse review for it

[Anonymous User]

In an industry that has more than 2 job titles a senior would be two ranks above you and be called Assistant Vice President or something, and it wouldn't look that weird.

[nixy]

Why don’t you think a senior associate is in a position to evaluate a junior they’ve worked with? Are partners somehow magically better at this? Do you have to be good at your job actually to evaluate others?

Maybe I’m wrong, but yeah, I would have assumed the typical partner is a good bit better at being a lawyer than the typical senior, especially in this climate where we’ve had years of firms struggling to retain people. Just seems like it’d suck to be a good junior reviewed by a not-so-good senior and to get a worse review for it

But aren't the senior associates the people actually working with juniors, much more than partners?