(Author) General Counsel

Does anyone use scorecards to grade or provide feedback to their outside counsel firm?

General Counsel and Associate General Counsel Responses:

• As a law firm, we really like the scorecards and feedback.  Sometimes the lawyers have a hard time hearing it, but when presented honestly and with the goal to improve the relationship, hearing directly from the client is very powerful. To be honest, we don't really like the concept of "grades", but I hear the problem you are trying to solve and support it.

• We do use a scorecard – per your ask, but our overall firm scorecard is the output of a few other templates we use in our annual outside counsel review process. We think our process is fair, efficient, and delivers meaningful feedback to our partner firms, while giving them the opportunity to highlight their successes, share challenges, and opportunities with our legal team and GC. Internally, we review outcomes throughout the year to discuss and decide on a variety of actions – ongoing/new firm engagements, expansion of subject matter/practice scope, rate increase requests, etc.

• A few of our templates (including the scorecard) for the review process are listed:

  • Template review deck. All of our preferred firms fill this out prior to scheduled formal review with our GC and legal leadership It captures key billing/matter/staffing/diversity metrics we are looking to review and discuss.

  • The highlight reel slides give the firm an opportunity to share successes.

  • Feedback slides give the firm an opportunity to share what's working well, opportunities for improvement, and how we can better partner going forward.

  • An internal survey is sent out to all internal legal professionals on our team who have worked with the firm. 

  • Opportunity to share candid feedback. 

  • Legal operations summarizes and shares in formal review. 

  • Internal Scoring Rubric which rates and ranks internal and firm-provided metrics against peer firms and provides benchmarking for rate reviews 

  • Action Item Tracker which tracks any action items emerging from reviews (e.g. "Develop partner SharePoint site for enhanced collaboration" or "Firm to provide June CLE on Cybersecurity") and sends reminders to responsible internal managing attorney and Legal Ops.

• Score carding is very effective, common and a key part of the external feedback process. However, to justify the effort, creating the right metrics within the score card is the key. The team's that are being most successful at it are not only using them as "report cards" on last year's performance but using it to drive behaviors and incentives on both sides.

• Here are some additional thoughts:

  • It can also be leveraged as an internal tool. It can support your service delivery and overall operating model. 

  • As others have noted, it is best to incorporate qualitative and quantitative data; and a variety of data sources; and, variety of voices. The 80/20 rule can help focus on which firms get more in-depth focus.

  • Any level of score cards can help raise the internal data-oriented management approach to spend and firm management.

  • A good starting point is your ELM system. Some data is captured in the natural operation of the system (e.g. effective bill rates). While, other data points can be captured through design (e.g. attorney/firm feedback on matter level). Still other data points can be obtained via embedded workflow or survey systems. 

• Grades - in my experience -- 

  • There are certain types of grades that can serve the purpose e.g. contextualized rates/benchmarks or cybersecurity rating (from a third party) or DEI score.

  • Other grades are probably better translated into the qualitative feedback message - if there is an opportunity that the grade can be skewed due to lack of responses or grading biases or outliers then qualitative is the way to go. Additional data gathering from the constituents can uncover meaningful trends.

  • In my experience, managing attorneys find it easier to provide an annual survey feedback on a firm than filling out the same on each matter closing - so just looking into a matter-based report may provide grading that is hard to justify or back-up on its own.

• This is a great thread. A couple things I'll highlight and amplify:

  • Use both Quantitative and Qualitative measures. You want to improve the service AND manage costs, not OR.

  • Rankings drive competition - This is a Type A industry, nobody wants to be 8th.

  • Market compensations are good, portfolio compensations are better – these are harder to argue that the benchmark doesn't apply when it was created by your literal peer firms.

  • Good scorecards have actions and outcomes.  If the firm does well, what do they get? Being able to articulate the rewards (and penalties) will drive better performance.  Work with your GC to set those expectations and be prepared to follow through.

• I agree with all that has been said so far. I would argue that scorecards are almost like table stakes these days; firms should expect to be "graded" by their clients in some fashion. Some things to add to all the good things that have already been said in this thread:

  • Successful implementations of scorecards have a 360-degree component. The firms must be provided an opportunity to provide feedback on the client, too. The scorecard needs to capture both the effort and the results, e.g., not just the hours and billing rates but also "results" that the firm has given including advocacy, "looking around the corner", etc.

  • As important to the design of the scorecard is what we are doing with it.  The message that needs to be communicated internally and externally is that it's about building long-term, win-win partnerships, and the scorecards are not just about grades and checking some boxes.  How can we work together for a more value-added partnership than a billable hourly one?  How do we work on the things that are being highlighted through this scorecard process?

  • For new implementations of scorecards, it's important to get input in the design process from some key partner firms, so they are heard and incorporated.  This goes a long way in building trust and getting the buy-in. It then becomes part of messaging the change to the firms.

• All great stuff. I would add just one or two things:

  • Firms absolutely crave this kind of feedback and it's usually too easy for a client to not provide it and so...keep it simple and easy. Prioritize simplicity and ease of submitting feedback so that you get/give more of it.

  • One of the most common things I hear in talking to firms who use PERSUIT is that they want feedback more often from their clients.

Give us your response and be a part of the discussion.