Some questions we get asked a lot here at JBL:
- “Do we have to do file reviews?”
- “Have you seen a good way to implement file reviews?”
- “How do you get people to engage with file reviews?”
If any of those sound familiar, you are not on your own.
Work is busy. There is always something urgent to do, targets to meet. There is an abundance of “compliance” to complete. Somewhere along the line, file reviews can move just that little bit further down the priority list.
We know file reviews are consistently flagged as important for quality and risk management. We also know they are often the last task anyone wants to engage with.
For the people given this unenviable task, the answer is to change the culture around supervision.
The regulatory position
File reviews are not expressly required by the SRA in those exact words. But effective supervision is.
The SRA Code of Conduct for Firms requires firms to have an effective system for supervising clients’ matters. The SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors says that where you supervise or manage others providing legal services, you remain accountable for the work carried out through them and must effectively supervise work being done for clients.
File reviews are one of the clearest ways to evidence that supervision is happening in practice. They give firms a window into what is really going on in files, rather than what everyone hopes is going on.
The stakes are rising. PII insurers increasingly ask about file review practices during professional indemnity insurance renewal. When the SRA sends out pre-inspection questionnaires, file reviews are also a frequent item.
For firms with accreditations, file reviews are usually non-negotiable. Firms holding Lexcel or CQS will need to make sure their file review arrangements meet the requirements of those schemes. In Lexcel firms, supervisors must retain oversight of findings even where the actual review work is delegated.
Getting buy-in from the top
Where firms often run into trouble is getting senior management and heads of department on board. That is perhaps unsurprising. File reviews compete with client work, billing targets, other supervision, recruitment, complaints, training and all the other jobs that land on managers.
But if file reviews are treated as optional admin, they will always drift.
One way to secure proper engagement is to link file review performance to departmental objectives, supervision KPIs, partner reviews or annual appraisals. That does not mean creating a punitive process. It means making supervision visible and accountable.
If a head of department is responsible for quality, risk and supervision, file review completion and follow-up should be part of that conversation.
The important point is that senior buy-in cannot be theoretical. The firm’s partners and managers need to agree that file reviews are a management tool, not a compliance nuisance.
Where to start
The obvious starting point is to review three documents:
- your supervision policy;
- your file review procedure; and
- your file review form.
These three things should work together.
- What do these documents say?
- Are they being followed?
- Are they practical?
- Do they help supervisors manage risk?
- Do they identify recurring issues?
- Do they produce useful action points?
- Can the firm see themes across teams, departments or work types?
It may be that the file review form is too detailed. It may be that it does not go far enough. It may be that the form is fine, but the findings are not being monitored. Or it may be that reviews are happening, but nobody is doing anything with the results.
That is the real problem. A completed file review form is not the end of the process. It is the start of a supervision conversation.
Daring to be different: a collaborative approach
People worry that file reviews are just audits designed to find fault. They can feel like criticism, even where they are intended to be constructive.
To overcome that, firms may need a narrative shift. Try this: take the department off timetable for an afternoon and have everyone review each other’s files.
This approach can achieve several things at once.
It acts as a hands-on training exercise. People learn how to complete the review form, in line with your policy, and why certain parts of the process are important.
It improves understanding. Reviewing someone else’s file often makes people more aware of issues in their own.
It creates consistency. Teams can discuss grey areas together, rather than each reviewer applying their own standard in isolation.
It can improve efficiency. There is a short-term cost in non-billable time, but better understanding should make future file reviews quicker and more useful.
It creates space for practical ethics discussions. With the SRA consulting on changes to continuing competence, and with ethics very much on the regulatory agenda, real file scenarios provide a sensible way to discuss judgement, supervision and professional standards.
It supports culture and collaboration. Setting aside time to learn and develop as a team signals that management understands the pressure people are under and wants file reviews to be done properly, not squeezed into the margins.
This peer review concept can be run on a rolling basis, focusing on a different department or team each month.
It is definitely a mindset shift. And without visible leadership it will be hard to implement. But for firms willing to try something different, changing the narrative from compliance burden to collaborative improvement can be a genuine win-win.
