May and June at the end of the financial years are traditionally the months when reviews are conducted by the law firms to be effective from 1 July for the review period to follow – usually for 6 or 12 months.
The objectives are set in conjunction with the lawyers including charge out rates, budgets, learning and development programs, mentoring programs, supervisory arrangements and other assorted performance metrics of both a qualitative and quantitative nature.
We’re frequently contacted for informed, independent, practice area specific and objective third party advice on Brisbane’s legal market remuneration levels based on levels of post admission experience, the tier type of the firm and the specific practice areas by both the firms and by lawyers having reviews to establish benchmarks and to anticipate respective expectations going into the conversations.
Whether it’s a product of not wishing to be seen as mercenary, presumptive or assumptive; or if it’s believed to be a process of just going through the motions because of a perception the review outcome is already pre-determined and non-negotiable, it never ceases to surprise how often lawyers are under prepared or not prepared at all for their review.
In the selfless pursuit of matters re clients, matters re colleagues and matters re their employer – matters re career doesn’t seem to be a priority or at least devoting the time to prepare for review.
The result ? A one way weighted review where the reviewer is often well prepared with an outcome in mind which in the absence of input and a considered submission by the reviewee leads to the reviewee being unable to influence an outcome which reflects both the reviewer and reviewee having contributed to an informed, researched and considered discussion such that the review is one which both believe to be a transparently understood and mutually respected commencing point for the assessment period to follow. Both have contributed, both have bought in to the process and both own the outcome and the respective duties, responsibilities and expectations that go with it.
It should be a 2 way street and never a 1 way street.
Knowing the outcome can be influenced to one’s betterment, commitment and motivation rather than a hope and pray 1 way process then why not seize the opportunity to have 2 way dialogue with your ideal outcome in mind along with the research, reasoning and independent advice to substantiate your case.
A unilateral conversation by default resigns the process to being whatever outcome’s proposed by the reviewer in the absence of input.
Upon deciding what outcome would be preferred then substantiating the outcome follows. Expectations or outcomes which aren’t supported by a business case which you’re prepared to commit to can be problematic. Quid pro quo – have the preferred outcome you’re seeking from the process ready for articulation, however have the case or evidence to support it too.
You’ll find you’ll have more review wins than losses.
Even if you don’t receive 100% of the outcome sought the result will commonly be much preferred than the alternative being the result of no prior thought, planning and preparation.
Which side of the street would you prefer to be on at review time – the 1 way or the 2 way street ?
Ian Dhu
Ian’s an industry expert in the recruitment, career development and retention of lawyers.
Over the last 30 years Ian’s successfully placed numerous lawyers.
Career conscious lawyers contact him for his informed, objective and accurate market advice when making considered and confidential career enhancing transitions involving private law firms, corporations and Government.
Organizations requiring lawyers collaborate with Ian.
If you would like to benefit from a successful legal career or require legal talent then
You’re invited to contact Ian at:
