Beyond billables: Patrick McKenna on best practices for evaluating partner performance

How do you evaluate partner performance, and how should managing partners address underperformance? These are some of the thorny questions that Patrick McKenna, an Edmonton-based law firm management consultant, addresses in his chapter of the recent e-book Managing Partner Performance.

McKenna explains that the e-book’s title reflects dual objectives: “There's managing partner performance, and there's managing partner performance.”

McKenna's goal, he says, was to demystify the often-vague expectations surrounding partner contributions and the tendency within law firms to overemphasize financial metrics while neglecting the broader, growth-oriented aspects of performance.

He says most firms fail to clearly define partners' expectations in written form, much less align those expectations with the firm’s strategic goals. “In many firms, we have no really clear definition of what performance obligations of being a partner might include,” McKenna says, noting how this ambiguity leads to a heavy focus on billable hours and revenue generation while leaving the deeper, long-term impact unmeasured.

In his chapter, McKenna provides a checklist for firms seeking to broaden their evaluation criteria beyond revenue metrics. “How did you transfer skills to other professionals?” he suggests asking, alongside “How did you make methodology improvements that were used by others? How did you increase market awareness of our practice?” McKenna says these questions aim to shift focus toward contributions that foster knowledge sharing and client relationships within the firm. “We’re not talking about billable hours or cross-selling or calling on prospects. We’re talking about what kind of a contribution did you make as a partner to others within the firm?” he says.

Beyond partner contributions, McKenna also addresses the issue of underperformance. Distinguishing between partners temporarily struggling due to personal problems and consistently failing to meet standards requires leaders to take a nuanced approach. He notes that the top reasons for underperformance – personal issues, burnout, and fear of failure – often have little to do with work skills. “If some colleague is not performing or acting out, it's not because they don’t know what is expected of them,” he explains. Instead, it’s often due to deeply personal reasons that can affect anyone.

Acknowledging the role of empathy, McKenna emphasizes that leaders should first conduct a detailed assessment of the situation. “As a firm leader, you may want to ensure that there exists some understanding of why … some lawyer [is] behaving the way they are,” he says. This “diagnostic” approach, he argues, can differentiate between those needing temporary support and those who require long-term intervention. But he also warns that not all issues can be solved with coaching or counselling: “You can coach technique…and certain behaviour patterns, [but] you can't coach character ambition or a fundamental change in personality.”

Accountability, however, remains paramount. McKenna stresses that leaders must be prepared to act decisively when necessary, though many hesitate. “What happens is that most often… a firm leader decides …, ‘Oh, gee, if we just give this situation a little bit more time, it will probably resolve itself,’” he observes, noting that this passive approach can send damaging signals across the organization. Avoiding confrontation can create a permissive culture where underperformance or misconduct is tolerated. “The culture of your law firm is defined by what behaviour you’re prepared to tolerate,” he says.

When addressing persistent underperformance, McKenna advises a structured approach, including role-playing scenarios to anticipate reactions and practising difficult conversations. He emphasizes the importance of keeping ownership of the problem with the underperforming partner rather than shifting responsibility onto the leader. “Who owns the monkey?” he asks, referring to the old management metaphor where the problem “monkey” ends up on the leader’s shoulder instead of with the partner responsible. McKenna argues that clarifying ownership of the issue helps ensure that solutions come from the partner, not the leader.

The book also underscores a common but ineffective approach to addressing underperformance: cutting a partner’s compensation. “The reduction in comp only makes a problem lawyer a pissed-off problem lawyer, and it doesn’t work,” he says. In McKenna’s view, such measures often create resentment rather than motivation, leading to even more entrenched behaviour. Instead, he urges leaders to outline the broader consequences of ongoing underperformance. Clarifying the stakes and implications helps partners understand that their actions directly impact the team and the firm’s future.

In the final analysis, McKenna’s insights in Managing Partner Performance underscore a critical truth about law firm management: a leader’s willingness to confront issues, however uncomfortable, ultimately defines the firm’s culture and future.