Does your office use anything besides trial numbers for promotion decisions?
Curious how other PD offices handle attorney advancement and promotion criteria. Our office has always put a lot of weight on trial numbers, like hitting specific thresholds of misdo/felony trials, prelims, etc., and lately there's been a lot of internal conversation about whether that's really the best way to assess attorney development and readiness for promotion.
My concern is that when numbers are the only visible metric and way to increase one’s salary, it can quietly motivate people to take cases to trial that probably should have resolved, or away from spending time on motions, client communication, or negotiating good outcomes. It also kind of ignores how some really talented attorneys contribute in ways that don't show up in trial counts at all, like mental health diversion work or appeals. And ironically, it can also push out the attorneys who are genuinely dedicated trial lawyers by creating a culture where the pressure and expectations around numbers become unsustainable. We're seeing it affect retention.
Obviously trial experience matters. Doing less serious trials is how you get ready for a homicide or bad sex case. But there has to be a more well-rounded way to assess attorneys that also looks at quality of advocacy, client relationships, motion practice, and how cases actually resolve. Would love to hear if offices are measuring attorney growth differently and what that looks like day to day.