People & HR

How to run a performance review cycle as Small Law and Accounting Practices

People & HRFor Small Law and Accounting Practices4 apps12 steps~24 min to set up

At a six-attorney or four-CPA firm, performance reviews happen once a year, badly. The managing partner sends a Google Form in November, waits two weeks for responses, then writes evaluations from memory in a Google Doc. Billable hours are in Clio or QuickBooks. Client feedback lives in Outlook threads nobody exported. Meeting notes from one-on-ones were never written down. The result is a review that reflects whoever was visible in October, not who actually performed. Junior associates and staff accountants leave because they felt blindsided. The process takes the managing partner a full week to run and still feels unfair.

Build this on Starch → See the apps used

People & HRFor Small Law and Accounting Practices4 apps12 steps~24 min to set up

Outcome

What you'll set up

A structured review cycle with self-assessment prompts, peer review collection, and a manager summary — all drafted by Starch from your Outlook threads, calendar one-on-ones, and billable-hour data so you're not writing from memory

A searchable archive of every one-on-one, review conversation, and performance note tied to each staff member, so next year's review takes two hours instead of two weeks

Automated reminders and follow-up tracking so reviewees submit on time and reviewers don't need a paralegal chasing them down

The Starch recipe

Apps, data, and prompts

The combination of Starch apps, the data sources they pull from, and the prompts you use to drive them.

Apps used

Meeting Notes Knowledge Management Task Manager Email Agent

Data sources & config

Starch syncs your QuickBooks data on a schedule (billable hours, compensation data for context). Starch connects directly to Outlook so it can send self-assessment forms, collect peer review submissions via email, and draft review summaries from thread history. Starch connects directly to Google Calendar or Outlook Calendar to pull one-on-one meeting history. Clio is reachable from Starch's integration catalog — the agent queries it live for matter assignments and workload data per attorney. Meeting Notes and Knowledge Management run inside Starch with no additional setup.

Prompts to copy

Build me a performance review tracker for 8 staff members — associates, paralegals, and one office manager. Each person needs a self-assessment form, a section for peer input from two colleagues, and a manager summary. Pull in billable hours from QuickBooks for each person and attach their hours to their profile.

Every time I finish a one-on-one with a staff member, create a meeting note, extract any commitments they made or I made, and file it under that person's name in the knowledge base.

Draft a performance review summary for Sarah Chen based on her meeting notes from the past 12 months, her self-assessment, and the two peer reviews I've collected. Flag any patterns — consistent themes, contradictions between self and peer views, anything I should address directly.

Send each staff member their self-assessment form by email, set a deadline of November 14, and remind anyone who hasn't submitted by November 12 with a follow-up from my Outlook account.

Create a task list for me with every step of the November review cycle — self-assessments due, peer review collection, my draft summaries, and scheduled review meetings — with due dates and P1/P2 priority levels.

Run these in Starch → or paste them into your favorite agent

Walkthrough

Step-by-step

1 Connect QuickBooks (scheduled sync) so Starch can pull each staff member's billable hours by period — this becomes the quantitative backbone of every review and removes the 'reconstructed from memory' problem.

2 Connect Outlook or Gmail (scheduled sync) so Starch can read one-on-one thread history, client feedback emails, and any written praise or concerns that passed through email in the past 12 months.

3 Connect Google Calendar or Outlook Calendar (scheduled sync) so Meeting Notes can attach transcripts and summaries to the right staff member's file every time a one-on-one is finished.

4 Tell Starch: 'Build me a knowledge base organized by staff member, where each person has a folder containing their one-on-one notes, any written feedback I've sent them, and their historical review summaries.' Starch sets this up from your description.

5 Tell Starch to draft and send self-assessment forms to each staff member via Outlook, with a two-week deadline and automatic reminders to anyone who hasn't responded three days before the due date.

6 Tell Starch to collect peer review submissions — two peers per person — by email and route responses into each reviewee's knowledge base folder automatically.

7 Use Meeting Notes for every review prep conversation and one-on-one: it transcribes, extracts action items, and files the note under the correct staff member in your knowledge base.

8 When self-assessments and peer reviews are in, prompt Starch to draft a manager summary for each person — pulling from their one-on-one notes, peer input, self-assessment, and QuickBooks billable hours.

9 Review each draft summary in Starch, edit in plain text, and have Starch format it into your firm's standard review document (a Word or PDF export you describe once).

10 Schedule review meetings through Calendar Management; Starch attaches each person's finalized summary to their calendar invite via Outlook so they see it before the conversation.

11 After each review meeting, Meeting Notes captures commitments made — a raise, a promotion timeline, a skill-development goal — and creates a Task Manager item for each follow-through so nothing gets forgotten until next November.

12 Tell Starch to archive this cycle in the knowledge base so next year's reviews start with 12 months of structured notes instead of a blank Google Doc.

See this running on Starch

Connect your tools, describe what you want, and the agent builds it. Closed beta is free.

Try it on Starch →

Worked example

November 2025 Review Cycle — six-attorney firm, four support staff

Sample numbers from a real run

Sarah Chen (Associate, 3 yrs)	1,840
Marcus Webb (Associate, 1 yr)	1,210
Diane Rojas (Paralegal, 5 yrs)	0
Office Manager	0

The managing partner runs a firm of six attorneys and four staff. In past years, review season meant two weeks of the partner's time reconstructing who did what. This year: QuickBooks syncs show Sarah Chen billed 1,840 hours year-to-date against a 1,750 target; Marcus Webb billed 1,210 against a 1,600 target. Starch drafts Sarah's review by pulling four one-on-one meeting notes from the knowledge base (March, June, August, October), two peer reviews from associates who worked the Hendricks matter with her, and her self-assessment. The draft flags a consistent theme: strong client communication, slower-than-expected brief turnaround. The managing partner edits two paragraphs. Marcus's draft surfaces a different picture — peer reviews mention strong research but one-on-one notes from August and October both reference the same deadline miss on the Calloway file. The partner didn't remember this was a pattern; the notes did. Total drafting time for ten reviews: four hours, down from the usual 30+. Diane Rojas's review pulls her one-on-one notes and the two client emails the partner forwarded to her with praise, which Starch found in Outlook thread history and filed automatically. Her review writes itself in eight minutes.

Measurement

How you'll know it's working

Billable hours per attorney vs. annual target (pulled from QuickBooks)

Review cycle completion rate — percentage of self-assessments and peer reviews submitted by deadline

Managing partner time spent on review drafting (target: under 8 hours for a 10-person firm)

Follow-through rate on commitments made during reviews (raises actioned, development goals set as tasks)

Staff retention year-over-year — the metric the review cycle is ultimately meant to move

Comparison

What this replaces

The other ways teams handle this today, and how the Starch version compares.

15Five or Lattice

Purpose-built performance review software with structured templates, but adds a per-seat SaaS cost to a firm that already pays for Clio, QuickBooks, and Outlook — and neither tool drafts the review summary from your actual one-on-one history or billable data.

Google Forms + Docs (current state)

Free and familiar, but forms collect responses that go nowhere automatically — the managing partner still assembles everything by hand, and nothing is archived in a way that's useful next year.

Clio Manage built-in reporting

Good for matter and billing data, but has no performance review workflow, no self-assessment collection, and no way to summarize a year's worth of one-on-one notes.

BambooHR

Covers HR records and review cycles for firms that want a dedicated HR system, but at a cost and configuration overhead that's hard to justify for a four-to-six-person staff, and it doesn't pull from your email and meeting history to draft the actual review content.

On Starch RECOMMENDED

One platform — meeting notes, knowledge management, task manager all running on connected data. Setup in plain English; numbers stay current via scheduled syncs and live agent queries.

Try it on Starch →

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

We use Clio for matter tracking. Can Starch pull Clio data into the review?

Yes. Clio is reachable from Starch's integration catalog — the agent queries it live when you ask for matter assignments, client counts, or workload distribution per attorney. You describe what you want to see ('show me each associate's active matters and billing rates from Clio alongside their QuickBooks hours') and Starch builds the view.

What if our staff doesn't use the same email platform — some are on Outlook, one is on Gmail?

Starch connects directly to both Outlook and Gmail. Each person's one-on-one thread history and any written feedback sent to them is reachable regardless of which platform they use.

Is this secure enough for HR data about attorneys and staff?

Starch is not SOC 2 Type II certified today — that's worth naming directly. If your firm has a compliance policy that requires SOC 2 Type II for any tool touching HR records, Starch isn't there yet. For firms without that hard requirement, the data flows through the same OAuth connections you'd grant to any modern SaaS tool.

Can Starch actually draft a review summary, or does it just organize the inputs?

It drafts. You tell Starch something like 'write a performance review summary for Marcus Webb based on his one-on-one notes, peer reviews, self-assessment, and billable hours — flag any patterns across sources.' It produces a draft you edit. The draft is only as good as the inputs, which is why setting up Meeting Notes for one-on-ones throughout the year matters — the more notes are in the knowledge base, the less the draft sounds like a guess.

What happens to the review data after the cycle ends? Do we lose it?

It lives in your knowledge base inside Starch, organized by staff member. Next year's reviews start with a full year of one-on-one notes, the previous review summary, and any follow-through tasks that were set. You're building an actual HR file, not just running a one-time form collection.

We only do reviews once a year. Is it worth setting this up for a single annual event?

The setup pays off across the year, not just during review week. Meeting Notes runs during every one-on-one. The knowledge base accumulates context all year. By the time November arrives, most of the work is already done — you're drafting summaries from 12 months of structured notes rather than starting from a blank page. The review cycle itself takes less than a day instead of two weeks.