The legal industry is full of highly intelligent people. In the opinion of some, Justice Scalia among them, there are too many smart people in law. Or at least too many people who could be making contributions to society in other ways, but are choosing to be lawyers. This “criticism” is interesting, since it says more about the place of law in society than it does about those “super smart” lawyers who could have become scientists or even artists. There is obviously something about law that attracts highly intelligent people. Perhaps it’s the ambiguity, or the illusion of “progress” as precedent develops. Or maybe smart people prefer to sit behind a desk, bag of honey-roasted peanuts within reach, instead of holding a job that requires physical labor.
Absent some extraordinary circumstances, no client prefers that a dumb lawyer handle their legal work. And no meritorious litigant hopes to draw an obtuse judge when filing their case. But as anyone who practices knows, there are smart lawyers and dumb ones. And while judges tend to be more intelligent than standard-issue lawyers, there are definitely significant differences in intellectual ability even among judges at the same level of the judicial system. Everyone knows that there is a spectrum of intelligence in the legal industry. But is there a baseline level of intelligence that is necessary for certain positions?
Answering that question is difficult. Having spent the vast majority of my career in Biglaw, I can speak best to my observations of lawyers in that slice of the profession. Yes, your default Biglaw attorney is an intelligent person. But intelligence is relative, and the question for those who have to decide whether to hire a new attorney, for example, is whether that job candidate is intelligent enough. Part of the answer will depend on the job criteria, of course. But the other part of the answer is whether what we use to measure intelligence in the legal industry is effective.
Because I have seen Biglaw partners, even successful ones, with quite limited intellectual ability. And I have seen extremely intelligent lawyers whose careers never got off the ground. That latter cohort is perhaps the group who could have helped society, and themselves, most if they had not chosen to go into law. But without a rigorous analysis of what types of intelligence are most conducive to successful legal careers, how can we tell someone that they are too dumb or too smart to work (for example) in Biglaw?
It is hard to “assess talent” — just look at professional sports. I am reminded of Jerry Rice, the former 49ers wide receiver who is among the greatest, if not the greatest, players in NFL history. There is a well-known story about how Rice, coming out of a small-time college football program (albeit with incredible statistics), was passed over in the draft by half the league. Why? Because his 40-yard dash time was considered a tenth of a second or two too slow relative to other wide receivers. But the 49ers, who coveted Rice, actually traded up in the draft to pick him with the 16th pick. Because their coaches took a more holistic view, and recognized that while Rice’s straight-line speed in a 40-yard dash might have been pedestrian, there was limited value in using that metric to evaluate wide receivers in the first place. And that Rice graded unbelievably high on other metrics that were more relevant to the actual playing of football, such as the ability to change direction and immediately accelerate away from a defender. It was those skills, coupled with Rice’s legendary practice habits and conditioning, that turned him into a legend. The team that looked at the right metrics won out, while those who focused on the “easier to work with” metric of 40-yard dash time lost out.
It would be too easy to say that lawyers need a certain IQ, or EQ, or LSAT score to succeed. The reality is more complicated. Almost anyone who passes the bar has an above-average IQ, for example. In some respects, however, using metrics like IQ or GPA or LSAT scores to grade a lawyer’s intelligence and potential is just like using the 40-yard dash as a tool for evaluating football players. Yes, there is a baseline that needs to be met. Jerry Rice would not have gotten a chance at all if his 40-yard dash time was closer to mine than it was to that of elite sprinters. But once that baseline is met, there still needs to be a real evaluation of whether the player (or lawyer) has the skills to succeed in the game (legal career) itself. And that means looking at the types of intelligence that have proven valuable in a particular practice area, for example. Some legal practices require outstanding analytical skills. Others put a premium on being able to focus. Yet others require high-level communication and verbal skills, whether written or oral. Ideally, a person’s intellectual abilities are matched well with the type of work they are doing. Because a lot of the reason lawyers fail is not because they are not smart enough, but because they are not the right kind of smart for the job they have.
Please feel free to send comments or questions to me at [email protected] or via Twitter: @gkroub. Any topic suggestions or thoughts are most welcome.
Earlier: Justice Antonin Scalia Says Some of the Best Minds May Be Wasted on Law
Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC, an intellectual property litigation boutique. The firm’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.
