How to assess partner competency through peer reviews

By Thomas Berman, Principal, Berman & Associates

In the first part of this article on peer reviewing a firm’s partners, we explored the need for transparency in a law firm practice. It was noted that, very often in the process of a firm evaluation, it becomes clear that the primary difficulties had to do with one or two principals who created many of the firm’s claims problems and who would essentially practise as they wished.

It was also noted that the only way to rectify the situation is to install a programme of partner/shareholder evaluation in a completely neutral (as much as possible) context so that the attributes of individual failures are ‘outed’ in a fair, objective and appropriate manner.

The second part of this article addresses a selection of issues of substance involved in the practice which can easily be evaluated through peer reviews, which might be used in the overall determination of lawyer effectiveness and competency.

A good deal of this material focuses in part at least on the overall practice management structure, such that in some cases the issue really lies with the system rather than the individual’s deficiencies.

File evaluation

The first issue to determine is how a file was managed at its origination. This includes preparatory conflicts checking, the draft of the fee engagement and the way in which the matter was first evaluated and then accepted.

Some important details include: Is the engagement letter signed by the client and in the file? Is the letter appropriate to the matter involved? Does the scope of engagement appear to adequately identify the subject matter of the engagement?

Another critical evaluation is the question of whether conflicts were properly tested. If the matter involved a purported conflict, is there a waiver of conflicts letter signed by the client? Are the potential conflicts adequately described and the waiver sufficient?

Was work done on the file before conflicts were checked and a determination was made that a conflict existed? Does it have the signature of the managing partner (or other neutral partner) and was it also appropriately handled by the firm’s conflicts process?

Billing issues are equally important because they tell the story of how the file was managed and whether there were problems.

For example, were the descriptions of work detailed in the invoices associated with a file properly supportive of the work being done? Is the work being done appropriately disclosed in the bills (i.e. are there notes in the file which correspond to telephone or conference entries on the bills)?

Were there any write offs? What appears to be the reason for those and were they appropriate? Overall, does the file appear to adequately describe and document the work that has been accomplished and billed?

The relationship with the client is crucial. Was the client copied on all correspondence and important memos and documents? Are the notes in the file intelligible and comprehensible to the client in the correspondence? If a discreet matter ended, is there a letter to the client clearly notifying him of the termination of services regarding that matter? Generally, what does the file reveal about the partner-client relationship?

Administration of the entire matter is the responsibility of the lead partner. Does the file detail whether tasks appropriate for associates and paralegals were clearly delegated to them? Was there a follow up to those assignments? How was the process handled? What does the file suggest about the ability of the partner involved to manage and/or administer the matter involved?

If a legal opinion was provided to a client, was the opinion reviewed and approved under the firm’s procedures for legal opinions?

Was the question of issuance of the opinion letter in the first place appropriately discussed and decided by the firm?

Was the firm’s technology utilised appropriately in handling the matter involved? Does the partner involved understand and work within the framework of the firm’s technology (for example, making notes to the file using the practice management system)?

If a trust account of any kind is involved, that must be reviewed. Does the trust meet the standards of the firm?

Are there any other observations and/or comments to be made concerning the handling of the file?

Assessing the findings

The findings of the partner reviews should be in writing and considered at the next scheduled management committee (or similar group) meeting.

Reviews may be categorised as either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Recommendations regarding the findings should be put in place and, in a situation where an unsatisfactory review finding is made, a second review should be held six to eight months later.

Reports concerning unsatisfactory reviews should be done in confidence by the managing partner (or other individual) and might be subject of discussion at the next scheduled partnership meeting.

tberman@bermanassociates.net