Mintz Levin Changes ‘Troubled’ Associate Review Process, Requires Essay Answers
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo has ditched its multiple-choice associate rating questionnaire and is now requiring its partners to do their evaluations in essay form.
The firm’s managing partner, Robert Bodian, told the National Law Journal that the firm changed the process because it was “fairly troubled.”
Under the old system, partners were asked to rate associates in the categories of analytical skills, interpersonal skills, interaction with clients, writing skills and speaking skills. The choices ranged from “always exceeds expectations” to “doesn’t meet expectations.”
“What ends up happening is that not a lot of thought goes into it,” he said. “Also, if you have 200 associates, 190 are within four decimal points. It doesn’t provide any useful feedback.”
“We threw that out completely and asked the partners three or four questions they had to answer in longhand,” he continued. “It basically says: Please describe [the] associate’s strengths, where the associate needs to improve, where the associate is performing relative to class and provide any other information. More or less, that became the format. That’s useful because the partners and section heads have a better idea of how associates are performing. [It’s also] better for associates to understand what partners are saying.”
The NLJ interviewed Bodian after a year on the job as managing partner (or “managing member” as he’s known inside the law firm). Bodian disclosed another change in the interview—a new client intake procedure in which the firm often asks new clients to pay a retainer up front. The new policy has raised Mintz Levin’s realization rates by a couple points at the same time that other law firms saw a decline.
“At our level, in a $300 million business, every percentage point of realization rate is another $3 million,” he said. “So that’s $6 million that fell to the bottom line. We saw at least a 2 percent increase in realization rates.”
