Ethics

Last year, I complained that large law firms generally do a poor job of predicting which law students have the skills and personality to thrive in a large firm.  The issue is significant because 80% of large law firm associates leave their jobs within five years of being hired.

Part of the problem is that firms put too much weight on grade point averages, the prestige of certain law schools, and law journal participation.  Those factors may offer some insights about an applicant, but getting an "A" in Criminal Law, graduating from Harvard Law School, or being an editor for the Journal of 13th Century Amusement Park Law doesn't say much about whether someone will have the professional and interpersonal skills necessary to succeed and find satisfaction in a large firm. 

This disconnect between traditional hiring criteria and the qualities necessary for success is similar to a fundamental attribution error.  Law firms believe that particular traits -- the potential for good lawyering and the willingness to bill lots of hours -- are correlated to a law student's academic success, but there's little evidence to support any such correlation.

I mentioned some alternatives to the usual hiring criteria in last year's post, but I was particularly intrigued by a recent study conducted by some consultants for a top 25 law firm.  The consultants tried to determine whether lawyers who succeeded in the firm had something in common.  They found that the reputation of the law schools that the lawyers had attended was not nearly as important as other factors, such as whether someone had been an athlete in college, did well in specific law school classes, and enjoyed group hobbies (presumably before joining the firm -- who has time while there?).  Other factors, such as whether someone could speak a foreign language, were negatively correlated with law firm perseverance.

Of course, this is just one study of one law firm, and I have no idea how rigorous it was or how generally applicable the findings might be.  That said, I think that the firm is wise to figure out whether factors other than GPA and law school prestige accurately predict a lawyer's success in a large firm.  If it can come up with the right metrics, the firm could develop a competitive advantage, much like the Oakland A's gained an advantage by developing better metrics for identifying good baseball players. 

Then again, what do I know?  I speak Spanish, jog alone, didn't play any collegiate sports, got the worst grade of my life in tax at Harvard Law School, and left a large firm after only two years.  I'm sure the consultants wouldn't be surprised.