In a previous article, we explored why sustainable growth in a law firm depends on more than simply encouraging lawyers to “do more business development”. The broader point was that growth tends to reflect how a firm is structured and managed internally. KPIs only become useful when they sit within a wider framework that aligns behaviour, utilisation, commercial priorities, and long-term firm strategy.
The more difficult question, however, is where firms should actually begin. That is usually where the gap between theory and practice starts to appear.
Many firms approach KPI alignment by jumping straight into targets, reporting structures, and accountability measures before properly defining how the business itself is expected to operate. On paper, the framework may appear organised. In practice, lawyers often experience it very differently.
What follows is usually familiar. Reporting increases, but behaviour changes inconsistently. Some lawyers engage with the framework while others quietly disengage from it altogether. Leadership becomes frustrated by the lack of traction, while lawyers begin viewing the system as administrative rather than commercially meaningful.
At that stage, firms often conclude that the KPIs themselves are not working.
In reality, the issue usually sits elsewhere. The framework was introduced before there was enough alignment around the operating model underneath it.
Most firms try to measure behaviour before defining what good behaviour actually looks like
This tends to happen for understandable reasons. Leadership teams know the outcomes they want. They want stronger profitability, better client retention, more consistent business development activity, and greater visibility over performance across the partnership. The natural instinct is therefore to introduce measurement.
The difficulty is that many firms attempt to measure behaviour before properly defining what good behaviour actually looks like inside their own business.
Which practice areas are expected to drive growth over the next few years? Which partners are responsible for developing strategic relationships? Which lawyers should be spending more time externally building visibility and market presence? Which individuals need protecting from excessive delivery work so they have the capacity to originate? Which associates should gradually be developed commercially over time, and which are strongest focusing primarily on technical execution?
These are not secondary questions sitting alongside the KPI discussion. They are the foundation underneath it.
Without clarity around these areas, firms often introduce broad expectations that sound sensible in principle but feel disconnected in practice. Lawyers begin feeling measured against assumptions that do not properly reflect workload realities or the way the business actually functions day to day. Leadership, meanwhile, sees inconsistent engagement and starts questioning whether the framework is working at all.
In many cases, the issue is not resistance to accountability. The issue is that the underlying operating model was never sufficiently clear in the first place.
The firms that approach this successfully usually begin with observation rather than measurement
The strongest frameworks are rarely built quickly.
The firms that tend to get this right usually spend time understanding how the business already operates before deciding how it should be measured. That process is often more revealing than leadership initially expects.
In many firms, a relatively small number of individuals account for a significant proportion of client relationships and revenue generation. Certain practice areas consistently outperform others commercially. Some lawyers are naturally strong in relationship-driven environments, while others create far more value through delivery, technical quality, and matter management.
Most firms already know this informally. The problem is that very little of it is reflected structurally.
Instead, businesses often drift towards broad expectations that assume all lawyers should contribute commercially in similar ways, despite the reality being much more nuanced than that.
That is usually where alignment begins to weaken.
Not every lawyer should contribute in the same way
One of the more damaging assumptions firms sometimes make is that growth requires everybody across the business to become equally commercially driven.
In practice, successful firms tend to rely on a combination of different strengths operating together properly.
Some lawyers are natural originators. They are visible in the market, commercially instinctive, and strong at developing relationships over time.
Others can absolutely become commercially effective, but usually require structure, confidence-building, and gradual exposure before those skills develop naturally.
Others contribute most through execution. They manage matters exceptionally well, maintain quality under pressure, and provide the consistency clients ultimately stay for.
Good firms recognise the importance of all three.
Poorly designed KPI systems often flatten those distinctions by applying broad expectations evenly across the business without enough consideration for how different individuals actually create value.
Over time, that tends to create frustration on both sides. Lawyers feel they are being assessed against contribution models that do not reflect their strengths, while leadership becomes disappointed by inconsistent engagement with the framework itself.
The strongest systems approach this differently. They create clarity around how different profiles contribute to growth and how those contributions fit together commercially across the wider business.
