How To Produce Better Work As A Lawyer
Some practical tips to help busy lawyers produce higher-quality work.
Contents
It can be easy to lose track of the bigger picture as a busy lawyer working in a corporate law firm.
Aggressive deadlines, pressure to juggle multiple matters and billable hour targets can make the work feel more like a sprint on a never-ending treadmill than an intentional journey towards heralded 'trusted adviser' status.
In our experience, lawyers often become highly efficient at doing the work but at the expense of their own professional development.
For transactional lawyers, in particular, it can be very easy to slip into auto-pilot mode.
While you might be getting through tasks very quickly - reviewing documents, negotiating agreements, sending emails - you’re not necessarily applying your full intellectual capacity to each task. And then, once the work is done, you rarely seek out feedback from colleagues on how you’re doing.
Your output is good - but it could be even better.
This is a trap we certainly fell into from time to time as former corporate and finance lawyers in City law firms. And we think it can be avoided by deploying a few simple tips.
This is a short guide designed to help lawyers produce higher-quality work.
Get the free email for UK lawyers with the legal industry and business stories you need to know about to stay ahead. In your inbox, three times a week.
Agreeing a clear scope of work
This is something we’re almost evangelical about: you can’t deliver good work unless you have a crystal clear understanding of what the work is.
The above sounds painfully obvious, we know, but badly delegated work is an unfortunate feature in many law firms.
The reality is that most partners in law firms are not great managers.
It’s a specialist skill. Most lawyers aren’t properly trained to do it, some prefer to micromanage, and others just don’t enjoy having direct reports at all.
The scope of work checklist
So when you are being briefed on a piece of work by a senior colleague, it is up to you to ask the right questions to clarify expectations - to agree on a scope of work in other words.
Below is a suggested checklist to consult whenever you are assigned a new matter or task.
Use this as your scope of work checklist - write all of the answers down on the notepad you take with you to all your internal briefings.
- Timeline: When do you need this by?
- Format: What format would you like it in?
- Length/Detail: How long or detailed would you like it to be?
- Precedents: Is there a precedent you would like me to follow?
- Focus Areas: Is there anything specific you would like me to focus on?
With a scope of work, you now have a much better idea of what’s required, how much effort is needed and how long it’s likely to take you.
This helps you schedule your workload effectively and avoid last-minute crises. More than anything, it means you can set aside the right amount of time required to do the job well and to a high standard.
This avoids some all-too-common pitfalls:
- Over-delivering: Where you pull an unnecessary all-nighter drafting something that was five times longer than it needed to be and that focused on several things that weren’t relevant.
- Under-delivering: Where you prepare something that was much higher level than it should have been as you were under the impression that it needed to be done urgently.
So the takeaway is simple: never leave a task or matter briefing from anyone senior to you unless you understand exactly what’s required of you.
Asking the right questions not only demonstrates your professionalism but also sets you up for success.
Agree on a clear scope of work - and then deliver precisely against that.
Understanding the type of work you’re doing
Lawyers need to be comfortable with a mode of working that requires you to balance deep work and shallow work.
These two modes of working demand very different approaches.
- Deep work: Tasks that require focus and deep concentration, such as drafting documents, doing legal research or reviewing contracts. These tasks demand uninterrupted time and a high level of concentration.
- Shallow work: Activities like responding to emails, attending calls, and discussing issues with colleagues - what you might call ‘matter management’. This work often involves shorter, task-oriented time blocks and can accommodate interruptions.
The distinction between deep work and matter management is important. Why? The short answer is that you’ll produce better work.
Deep work (drafting documents, doing legal research) requires longer uninterrupted blocks of time to do well.
Interruptions like phone calls and responding to emails can significantly disrupt your productivity. We cover the so-called ‘switch cost’ of task switching in our guide to effective communication for lawyers.
It’s a real thing. Every interruption pulls your focus away, forcing your brain to restart when you return to the task.
Shallow work, on the other hand, is structured around meetings, calls and short, task-oriented time blocks. It revolves around multitasking, quick responses, and managing the flow of a matter. While important, it doesn’t require the same level of cognitive intensity as deep work.
What you want to do is start getting in the habit of recognising when a task requires deep work. If it does, then treat it with extra discipline to help protect your focus on it.
When you do this, you will produce higher quality, more complete work.
Productivity tips
Here are a couple of tips to help you be more productive at work.
1. Focus on one task at a time
Think of your brain like a computer’s central processing unit (CPU). When you constantly switch between tasks, you’re running multiple programs simultaneously, which slows everything down. Your performance suffers, and so does the quality of your work.
So whenever you can, run one program at a time. In other words, focus on one task at a time.
Load the task, work on it through to completion and then move on to the next task.
2. Use time blocking for deep work
Deep work thrives on uninterrupted blocks of time.
Imagine the productivity advantage of blocking out two uninterrupted hours to research a memo you’ve been asked to prepare vs trying to fit that in between calls and emails.
Do whatever you can to block out time in your calendar to do the task well.
- Clear your plate of quick tasks: Knock out low-effort, high-urgency tasks first to minimise distractions.
- Turn off notifications: Silence email, chat, and phone alerts to create a distraction-free environment. Check for urgent messages every 30 minutes if needed.
- Communicate proactively: Let your office colleague and secretary know that you’re dedicating the next two hours to a specific task. This helps manage expectations and avoids unnecessary interruptions.
Be disciplined about this. The quality of your work is at stake.
Embracing feedback
Once you’ve delivered the work, you need to know if it was good or not. Again, this sounds painfully obvious.
Law firms are notoriously bad places for feedback. This is especially evident if you’ve spent time working in other industries where feedback is more structured and frequent.
Everyone’s busy, no one’s got time. This is not a good thing.
Do not let this get in the way of your own development.
Embrace feedback. Seek it out. It’s a gift. Seriously. It is essential to know how you’re doing.
Feedback will sharpen your skills and improve your future performance.
Getting feedback
Receiving feedback is an important skill to master throughout your career.
At most levels of the law firm hierarchy you will have predefined feedback sessions with your manager - your supervisor as a trainee and relevant partners as an associate.
These are, of course, really important opportunities to see how you’re doing.
But few lawyers seek out feedback outside of these sessions. This is your opportunity.
If you’ve recently finished working on a project with another senior member of the department, take the opportunity to ask them for feedback.
Don’t be pushy - respect people’s time - but be direct and ask: “Do you have 10 minutes at lunchtime to have a quick debrief on matter X?”
To get the most out of the session, follow these principles:
- Focus on the future - ask what you can do better going forward, rather than what you did wrong in the past. You’ll get more honest feedback - most people don’t like picking holes in something that’s already been done for fear of being over-critical of the other person.
- Get specific - if there was an aspect of the project where you felt you could have done better, ask about that specific situation. For example, “What could I have done better on the client call we had to discuss the security agreement?”
- Listen - try not to judge any feedback in real-time as you’re receiving it, whether it’s positive or negative. Let the other person finish, don’t interrupt even if you feel defensive inside.
- Turn defensiveness into curiosity - you won’t always like everything you hear. That’s a good thing. But always assume positive intent from the other person. They are trying to help you, really.
- It’s not about you - remember, the feedback is about the work you have produced in a professional capacity - it’s not about you, it’s not an attack on your personal character, don’t take it personally.
- Write down what they say - on a notepad. It shows the other person that you care, and it means you can act on the feedback you receive when you head back to your desk.
Dealing with negative feedback
Negative feedback happens. Use it to your advantage.
So when someone says you could do X better, apply the principles we’ve just run through. Assume positive intent, assume that they are in fact right, listen to what they have to say, and thank them for the helpful insight.
Remember, a criticism of X doesn’t mean you do X badly all the time, every day, in every facet of your work.
So listen, ask the other person to give you more specifics, and then think if it’s something you need to fix in certain situations or a more general point about the way you work.
For example, a partner you worked with might say your attention to detail needs improving.
That feedback by itself is not very helpful. Ask them what specific aspect of your work made them say that.
They might say that your draft of the security agreement missed a couple of key provisions that had been agreed with the other side.
Great. That is where you need to improve.
Now you know to keep an up-to-date issues list of the negotiation points on the key transaction documents so you don’t miss anything important in future.
The net result? Higher-quality work!
Law Firm | Trainee First Year | Trainee Second Year | Newly Qualified (NQ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Addleshaw Goddard | £52,000 | £56,000 | £100,000 |
| Akin Gump | £60,000 | £65,000 | £174,418 |
| A&O Shearman | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Ashurst | £52,000 | £57,000 | £125,000 |
| Baker McKenzie | £56,000 | £61,000 | £140,000 |
| Bird & Bird | £47,000 | £52,000 | £98,000 |
| Bristows | £46,000 | £50,000 | £88,000 |
| Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner | £50,000 | £55,000 | £105,000 |
| Burges Salmon | £47,000 | £49,000 | £72,000 |
| Charles Russell Speechlys | £50,000 | £53,000 | £88,000 |
| Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton | £57,500 | £62,500 | £164,500 |
| Clifford Chance | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Clyde & Co | £47,000 | £49,500 | £85,000 |
| CMS | £50,000 | £55,000 | £110,000 |
| Cooley | £55,000 | £60,000 | £157,000 |
| Davis Polk | £65,000 | £70,000 | £170,000 |
| Debevoise | £55,000 | £60,000 | £173,000 |
| Dechert | £55,000 | £61,000 | £165,000 |
| Dentons | £50,000 | £54,000 | £100,000 |
| DLA Piper | £50,000 | £55,000 | £110,000 |
| Eversheds Sutherland | £46,000 | £50,000 | £100,000 |
| Farrer & Co | £47,000 | £49,000 | £88,000 |
| Fieldfisher | £48,500 | £52,000 | £95,000 |
| Freshfields | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Fried Frank | £55,000 | £60,000 | £175,000 |
| Gibson Dunn | £60,000 | £65,000 | £180,000 |
| Goodwin Procter | £55,000 | £60,000 | £175,000 |
| Gowling WLG | £48,500 | £53,500 | £98,000 |
| Herbert Smith Freehills | £56,000 | £61,000 | £135,000 |
| HFW | £50,000 | £54,000 | £100,000 |
| Hill Dickinson | £43,000 | £45,000 | £80,000 |
| Hogan Lovells | £56,000 | £61,000 | £135,000 |
| Irwin Mitchell | £43,000 | £45,000 | £76,000 |
| Jones Day | £56,000 | £65,000 | £160,000 |
| K&L Gates | £50,000 | £55,000 | £115,000 |
| Kennedys | £43,000 | £46,000 | £85,000 |
| King & Spalding | £55,000 | £60,000 | £165,000 |
| Kirkland & Ellis | £60,000 | £65,000 | £174,418 |
| Latham & Watkins | £60,000 | £65,000 | £174,418 |
| Linklaters | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Macfarlanes | £56,000 | £61,000 | £140,000 |
| Mayer Brown | £55,000 | £60,000 | £135,000 |
| McDermott Will & Emery | £65,000 | £70,000 | £174,418 |
| Milbank | £65,000 | £70,000 | £174,418 |
| Mills & Reeve | £45,000 | £47,000 | £82,000 |
| Mischon de Reya | £47,500 | £52,500 | £95,000 |
| Norton Rose Fulbright | £50,000 | £55,000 | £135,000 |
| Orrick | £55,000 | £60,000 | £160,000 |
| Osborne Clarke | £54,500 | £56,000 | £94,000 |
| Paul Hastings | £60,000 | £68,000 | £173,000 |
| Paul Weiss | £55,000 | £60,000 | £180,000 |
| Penningtons Manches Cooper | £48,000 | £50,000 | £83,000 |
| Pinsent Masons | £49,500 | £54,000 | £97,000 |
| Quinn Emanuel | n/a | n/a | £180,000 |
| Reed Smith | £50,000 | £55,000 | £125,000 |
| Ropes & Gray | £60,000 | £65,000 | £165,000 |
| RPC | £46,000 | £50,000 | £90,000 |
| Shoosmiths | £43,000 | £45,000 | £97,000 |
| Sidley Austin | £60,000 | £65,000 | £175,000 |
| Simmons & Simmons | £52,000 | £57,000 | £120,000 |
| Skadden | £58,000 | £63,000 | £173,000 |
| Slaughter and May | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Squire Patton Boggs | £47,000 | £50,000 | £110,000 |
| Stephenson Harwood | £50,000 | £55,000 | £100,000 |
| Sullivan & Cromwell | £65,000 | £70,000 | £174,418 |
| Taylor Wessing | £50,000 | £55,000 | £115,000 |
| TLT | £44,000 | £47,500 | £85,000 |
| Travers Smith | £54,000 | £59,000 | £120,000 |
| Trowers & Hamlins | £45,000 | £49,000 | £80,000 |
| Vinson & Elkins | £60,000 | £65,000 | £173,077 |
| Watson Farley & Williams | £50,000 | £55,000 | £102,000 |
| Weightmans | £34,000 | £36,000 | £70,000 |
| Weil Gotshal & Manges | £60,000 | £65,000 | £170,000 |
| White & Case | £62,000 | £67,000 | £175,000 |
| Willkie Farr & Gallagher | £60,000 | £65,000 | £170,000 |
| Withers | £47,000 | £52,000 | £95,000 |
| Womble Bond Dickinson | £43,000 | £45,000 | £80,000 |
Rank | Law Firm | Revenue | Profit per Equity Partner (PEP) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DLA Piper* | £3,010,000,000 | £2,400,000 |
| 2 | Clifford Chance | £2,300,000,000 | £2,040,000 |
| 3 | A&O Shearman | £2,200,000,000 | £2,200,000 |
| 4 | Hogan Lovells | £2,150,000,000 | £2,200,000 |
| 5 | Freshfields | £2,140,000,000 | Not disclosed |
| 6 | Linklaters | £2,100,000,000 | £1,900,000 |
| 7 | Norton Rose Fulbright* | £1,800,000,000 | £1,100,000 |
| 8 | CMS** | £1,620,000,000 | Not disclosed |
| 9 | Herbert Smith Freehills | £1,300,000,000 | £1,300,000 |
| 10 | Ashurst | £961,000,000 | £1,300,000 |
| 11 | Clyde & Co | £844,000,000 | £739,000 |
| 12 | Eversheds Sutherland | £749,000,000 | £1,300,000 |
| 13 | BCLP* | £661,000,000 | £748,000 |
| 14 | Pinsent Masons | £649,000,000 | £793,000 |
| 15 | Slaughter and May*** | £625,000,000 | Not disclosed |
| 16 | Simmons & Simmons | £574,000,000 | £1,076,000 |
| 17 | Bird & Bird** | £545,000,000 | £696,000 |
| 18 | Addleshaw Goddard | £495,000,000 | Not disclosed |
| 19 | Taylor Wessing | £480,000,000 | £915,000*** |
| 20 | Osborne Clarke** | £456,000,000 | £771,000 |
| 21 | Womble Bond Dickinson | £448,000,000 | £556,000 |
| 22 | DWF | £435,000,000 | Not disclosed |
| 23 | Fieldfisher | £407,000,000 | £966,000 |
| 24 | Kennedys | £384,000,000 | Not disclosed |
| 25 | DAC Beachcroft | £325,000,000 | £700,000 |
What do City lawyers actually do each day?
For a closer look at the day-to-day of some of the most common types of lawyers working in corporate law firms, explore our lawyer job profiles:
It’s about working smarter
Producing better work as a lawyer isn’t about working longer hours or constantly juggling tasks - it’s about working smarter.
By clarifying the scope of the tasks you’re given, respecting the difference between deep and shallow work, embracing productive habits and actively seeking feedback, you will improve the quality of your outputs over time.
| Firm | London office since | Known for in London |
|---|---|---|
| Baker McKenzie | 1961 | Finance, capital markets, TMT |
| Davis Polk | 1972 | Leveraged finance, corporate/M&A |
| Gibson Dunn | 1979 | Private equity, arbitration, energy, resources and infrastructure |
| Goodwin | 2008 | Private equity, funds, life sciences |
| Kirkland & Ellis | 1994 | Private equity, funds, restructuring |
| Latham & Watkins | 1990 | Finance, private equity, capital markets |
| Milbank | 1979 | Finance, capital markets, energy, resources and infrastructure |
| Paul Weiss | 2001 | Private equity, leveraged finance |
| Quinn Emanuel | 2008 | Litigation |
| Sidley Austin | 1974 | Leveraged finance, capital markets, corporate/M&A |
| Simpson Thacher | 1978 | Leveraged finance, private equity, funds |
| Skadden | 1988 | Finance, corporate/M&A, arbitration |
| Weil | 1996 | Restructuring, private equity, leverage finance |
| White & Case | 1971 | Capital markets, arbitration, energy, resources and infrastructure |
Law Firm | Trainee First Year | Trainee Second Year | Newly Qualified (NQ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| A&O Shearman | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Clifford Chance | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Linklaters | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Slaughter and May | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
Law Firm | Trainee First Year | Trainee Second Year | Newly Qualified (NQ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| A&O Shearman | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Clifford Chance | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Linklaters | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Slaughter and May | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
Law Firm | Trainee First Year | Trainee Second Year | Newly Qualified (NQ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ashurst | £52,000 | £57,000 | £125,000 |
| Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner | £50,000 | £55,000 | £105,000 |
| Herbert Smith Freehills | £56,000 | £61,000 | £135,000 |
| Macfarlanes | £56,000 | £61,000 | £140,000 |
| Travers Smith | £54,000 | £59,000 | £120,000 |
| Firm | Merger year | Known for in London |
|---|---|---|
| BCLP | 2018 | Real estate, corporate/M&A, litigation |
| DLA Piper | 2005 | Corporate/M&A, real estate, energy, resources and infrastructure |
| Eversheds Sutherland | 2017 | Corporate/M&A, finance |
| Hogan Lovells | 2011 | Litigation, regulation, finance |
| Mayer Brown | 2002 | Finance, capital markets, real estate |
| Norton Rose Fulbright | 2013 | Energy, resources and infrastructure, insurance, finance |
| Reed Smith | 2007 | Shipping, finance, TMT |
| Squire Patton Boggs | 2011 | Corporate/M&A, pensions, TMT |
Law Firm | Trainee First Year | Trainee Second Year | Newly Qualified (NQ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ashurst | £52,000 | £57,000 | £125,000 |
| Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner | £50,000 | £55,000 | £105,000 |
| Herbert Smith Freehills | £56,000 | £61,000 | £135,000 |
| Macfarlanes | £56,000 | £61,000 | £140,000 |
| Travers Smith | £54,000 | £59,000 | £120,000 |
Our newsletter is the best
Get the free email that keeps UK lawyers ahead on the stories that matter.
We send a short summary of the biggest legal industry and business stories you need to know about three times a week. Free to join. Unsubscribe at any time.
