Do Grades Predict Your Abilities as a Lawyer? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm a student at a T10 school. I finished my first year with grades below median (maybe bottom 30-40%). I was really disappointed in my grades both Fall and Spring of 1L year- despite trying my absolute hardest, I came out of it with grades that didn't reflect my efforts (I know this is a pretty typical story). I was lucky enough to get an SA at a V50 in NYC and am looking forward to doing that this summer. That said, I'm nervous-- are law school grades an indicator of performance as an SA? I'm mildly concerned that I'm missing some kind of ability that is critical for lawyering.

How much was being an SA like the kind of synthesis and analysis that goes on in class? Did others that didn't perform well in law school experience a "disconnect" with the type of work that was handed to you? If you've had an SA, anything you'd recommend as preparation? TIA!

PS I'm interested in corporate.

[2LLLL]

It depends.

My impression is that when it comes to what you'll be doing as an SA or junior associate, then yes, your grades will be somewhat determinative. You'll be doing a lot of researching and writing, which is most similar to what you do during law school.

When it comes to your success in practice, the answer is probably not. The two richest trial lawyers in my state both graduated at the bottom of their classes from a TTTT. In the courtroom, your charisma, confidence, and ability to connect with the jury and speak their language are going to be far more important than anything you learned in legal writing or torts. Similarly, as a deal lawyer I would think that creativity, the ability to think outside the box, and the ability to understand the client's economic objectives and make them happen would be more important.

[TooOld4This]

I disagree with the above.

Practicing law has very little to do with what is tested on a law school exam. You are generally not asked to dump 3 months worth of research into a 15 page memo in 3 hours.

Don't worry about your grades or school this summer. Neither will predict how you will perform. However, if you psych yourself out, that probably will affect your performance. Summer's who lack confidence often give off bad first impressions. The can also tend to either ask too many questions, or none -- both trying to compensate for not having confidence in their own abilities. (Likewise, the over-confident can shoot themselves in the foot -- I would actually say this tends to be the bigger problem.) Relax, go back and figure out what you missed from your exam and move on.

[truevines]

I disagree with the above.

Practicing law has very little to do with what is tested on a law school exam. You are generally not asked to dump 3 months worth of research into a 15 page memo in 3 hours.

Right, but you are asked to dump 3 to 5 days of research into a 15-page memo in 1 day.


OP does not have to worry about his ability to be a good lawyer. The offer (upon graduation) is OP's to lose now.

Be a normal person; don't be a law student; ask lots of questions; and turn in memos on time, OP will be fine.

[BaiAilian2013]

Keep in mind the influence of the curve on law school grades. It might make sense to expect a correlation between grades and career performance in a field of study where a correct answer made for a good grade, but that's not law school.

[Anonymous User]

Actually, I took some time and looked at the firm profiles of the top firms. Partners are more likely to have graduated with higher honors then associates from their same school. This would seem to indicate (a) a causal link between how well you do in LS and how good of an attorney you are, (b) that the same thing causing good performance in law school causes good performance in a law firm, and/or (c) partner selections depend, in part, on how the honors designation beside your name.

[c3pO4]

Actually, I took some time and looked at the firm profiles of the top firms. Partners are more likely to have graduated with higher honors then associates from their same school. This would seem to indicate (a) a causal link between how well you do in LS and how good of an attorney you are, (b) that the same thing causing good performance in law school causes good performance in a law firm, and/or (c) partner selections depend, in part, on how the honors designation beside your name.

This sounds like a sound methodology.

[Anonymous User]

Actually, I took some time and looked at the firm profiles of the top firms. Partners are more likely to have graduated with higher honors then associates from their same school. This would seem to indicate (a) a causal link between how well you do in LS and how good of an attorney you are, (b) that the same thing causing good performance in law school causes good performance in a law firm, and/or (c) partner selections depend, in part, on how the honors designation beside your name.

This sounds like a sound methodology.

I mean, it was more than just me looking lawyers up and writing down a general feeling on here. I actually went through and added everybody up. Again, it might not tell us much, but I have a feeling that there is at least some correlation to how well you do in law school and how well you do in practice.

[c3pO4]

Actually, I took some time and looked at the firm profiles of the top firms. Partners are more likely to have graduated with higher honors then associates from their same school. This would seem to indicate (a) a causal link between how well you do in LS and how good of an attorney you are, (b) that the same thing causing good performance in law school causes good performance in a law firm, and/or (c) partner selections depend, in part, on how the honors designation beside your name.

This sounds like a sound methodology.

I mean, it was more than just me looking lawyers up and writing down a general feeling on here. I actually went through and added everybody up. Again, it might not tell us much, but I have a feeling that there is at least some correlation to how well you do in law school and how well you do in practice.

Do you think the LSAT predicts success as a lawyer?

[Anonymous User]

Actually, I took some time and looked at the firm profiles of the top firms. Partners are more likely to have graduated with higher honors then associates from their same school. This would seem to indicate (a) a causal link between how well you do in LS and how good of an attorney you are, (b) that the same thing causing good performance in law school causes good performance in a law firm, and/or (c) partner selections depend, in part, on how the honors designation beside your name.

This sounds like a sound methodology.

I mean, it was more than just me looking lawyers up and writing down a general feeling on here. I actually went through and added everybody up. Again, it might not tell us much, but I have a feeling that there is at least some correlation to how well you do in law school and how well you do in practice.

Do you think the LSAT predicts success as a lawyer?

Predicts insofar as there is a correlation? Probably. But seriously, success in law school is a combination of things like hard work, intelligence, being able to quickly pick up foreign concepts, shaping a product that the "client" (i.e. professor) finds desirable, etc. I don't think it's crazy to say that somebody who succeeds in regard to those things is able to succeed more often in practice. There are a higher percentage of "magna cum laudes" as opposed to "no honors" with partner than there are associates. Maybe my research was not extensive enough, but this is what it looked like to me. So we can all agree on this. If you have an alternate story as to what's driving that data, then go ahead and say so. (And we don't have to play games with leading questions.)

[InnocuousDiatribe]

Actually, I took some time and looked at the firm profiles of the top firms. Partners are more likely to have graduated with higher honors then associates from their same school. This would seem to indicate (a) a causal link between how well you do in LS and how good of an attorney you are, (b) that the same thing causing good performance in law school causes good performance in a law firm, and/or (c) partner selections depend, in part, on how the honors designation beside your name.

This sounds like a sound methodology.

I mean, it was more than just me looking lawyers up and writing down a general feeling on here. I actually went through and added everybody up. Again, it might not tell us much, but I have a feeling that there is at least some correlation to how well you do in law school and how well you do in practice.

Perhaps the correlation is a measure of work ethic, i.e., the willingness to put in the hours necessary to understand the task and get the job done--and done well--rather than being caused by some developed "lawyering" ability. But who knows?

OP, if you'll be doing work with the corporate practice group, you'll likely be doing far less law school-like work than you might expect. One attorney I talked to said there's pretty much a one-year learning curve for most freshman associates because the work in corporate is so unlike anything they had ever done in law school. From what I understand, the typical LexisNexis-type of research and writing that you are used to is more in the dominion of the litigation group. Corporate handles legal issues on the business side. Granted, the ability to issue spot will still be useful, but, as one interviewer said, "I try to stay out of the library as often as possible."

Source: Asked a bunch of questions during my Big Law SA interviews to both corporate and litigation as to the differences.

[c3pO4]

Do you think the LSAT predicts success as a lawyer?

Predicts insofar as there is a correlation? Probably. But seriously, success in law school is a combination of things like hard work, intelligence, being able to quickly pick up foreign concepts, shaping a product that the "client" (i.e. professor) finds desirable, etc. I don't think it's crazy to say that somebody who succeeds in regard to those things is able to succeed more often in practice. There are a higher percentage of "magna cum laudes" as opposed to "no honors" with partner than there are associates. Maybe my research was not extensive enough, but this is what it looked like to me. So we can all agree on this. If you have an alternate story as to what's driving that data, then go ahead and say so. (And we don't have to play games with leading questions.)

Why don't you look at Partner race or gender and try to find a correlation there?

[Anonymous User]

Do you think the LSAT predicts success as a lawyer?

Predicts insofar as there is a correlation? Probably. But seriously, success in law school is a combination of things like hard work, intelligence, being able to quickly pick up foreign concepts, shaping a product that the "client" (i.e. professor) finds desirable, etc. I don't think it's crazy to say that somebody who succeeds in regard to those things is able to succeed more often in practice. There are a higher percentage of "magna cum laudes" as opposed to "no honors" with partner than there are associates. Maybe my research was not extensive enough, but this is what it looked like to me. So we can all agree on this. If you have an alternate story as to what's driving that data, then go ahead and say so. (And we don't have to play games with leading questions.)

Why don't you look at Partner race or gender and try to find a correlation there?

Can you just tell me in a clear manner what you're thinking instead of trying to communicate through leading questions?

[c3pO4]

Can you just tell me in a clear manner what you're thinking instead of trying to communicate through leading questions?

I think you are wrong.

[2LLLL]

Actually, I took some time and looked at the firm profiles of the top firms. Partners are more likely to have graduated with higher honors then associates from their same school. This would seem to indicate (a) a causal link between how well you do in LS and how good of an attorney you are, (b) that the same thing causing good performance in law school causes good performance in a law firm, and/or (c) partner selections depend, in part, on how the honors designation beside your name.

The problem with your analysis is that partners at the "top firms" are not necessarily the best lawyers. There are plaintiff's attorneys from T4s who have never sniffed BigLaw who have made a lot more money than any partner at WLRK (see Peter Angelos). While someone like David Boies or Ted Olson is surely a gifted litigator, and someone like Marty Lipton has incomparable skills at innovating in the transactional realm, I posit that it is false to say that a partner at, say CSM, is a "better lawyer" than a high-profile criminal defense attorney, or a class action specialist. I would suggest that achieving partner in a BigLaw firm is more about playing firm politics, ass-kissing the right people (prior partners and potential clients), and not breaking from the company line. A retard whose father was the CEO of Goldman Sachs is more likely to make partner in BigLaw than the next David Boies.

[Anonymous User]

Actually, I took some time and looked at the firm profiles of the top firms. Partners are more likely to have graduated with higher honors then associates from their same school. This would seem to indicate (a) a causal link between how well you do in LS and how good of an attorney you are, (b) that the same thing causing good performance in law school causes good performance in a law firm, and/or (c) partner selections depend, in part, on how the honors designation beside your name.

The problem with your analysis is that partners at the "top firms" are not necessarily the best lawyers. There are plaintiff's attorneys from T4s who have never sniffed BigLaw who have made a lot more money than any partner at WLRK (see Peter Angelos). While someone like David Boies or Ted Olson is surely a gifted litigator, and someone like Marty Lipton has incomparable skills at innovating in the transactional realm, I posit that it is false to say that a partner at, say CSM, is a "better lawyer" than a high-profile criminal defense attorney, or a class action specialist. I would suggest that achieving partner in a BigLaw firm is more about playing firm politics, ass-kissing the right people (prior partners and potential clients), and not breaking from the company line. A retard whose father was the CEO of Goldman Sachs is more likely to make partner in BigLaw than the next David Boies.

So maybe making partner does not necessarily mean that you're a good lawyer, but you seem to think that making money does? Maybe making partner is about playing politics, but maybe making a lot of money just means you know how to manipulate the system—not that you're anything special as a lawyer. I don't know, it seems like if it there really was rampant nepotism or the like going on, then there wouldn't be the correlation between law-school grades and partners that we see.

So you think that higher law-school grades are correlated to more skill in ass kissing / playing firm politics?

[Anonymous User]

Can you just tell me in a clear manner what you're thinking instead of trying to communicate through leading questions?

I think you are wrong.

Thank you for your insightful input.

[2014jd]

Actually, I took some time and looked at the firm profiles of the top firms. Partners are more likely to have graduated with higher honors then associates from their same school. This would seem to indicate (a) a causal link between how well you do in LS and how good of an attorney you are, (b) that the same thing causing good performance in law school causes good performance in a law firm, and/or (c) partner selections depend, in part, on how the honors designation beside your name.

The problem with your analysis is that partners at the "top firms" are not necessarily the best lawyers. There are plaintiff's attorneys from T4s who have never sniffed BigLaw who have made a lot more money than any partner at WLRK (see Peter Angelos). While someone like David Boies or Ted Olson is surely a gifted litigator, and someone like Marty Lipton has incomparable skills at innovating in the transactional realm, I posit that it is false to say that a partner at, say CSM, is a "better lawyer" than a high-profile criminal defense attorney, or a class action specialist. I would suggest that achieving partner in a BigLaw firm is more about playing firm politics, ass-kissing the right people (prior partners and potential clients), and not breaking from the company line. A retard whose father was the CEO of Goldman Sachs is more likely to make partner in BigLaw than the next David Boies.

I agree somewhat with the above, in that ability to make partner depends in part upon your ability to bring in business for the firm. That said, my guess for the explanation behind more partners with law school honors is selection bias. Top firms hire more associates with honors then without, so naturally the ones that make it to the top have a greater likelihood of having honors next to their name. Also, when it comes to making partner decisions, honors probably play a small part in their decision. By that point though, I would expect reputation as a lawyer and ability to bring in business to be more determinative.

I maybe have something useful for your original question -- do grades correlate with lawyering ability? -- I think in the beginning they do. One partner at a mid-size firm told me that one of the reasons they use grades for hiring is it shows how well you can handle a steep learning curve. He was saying that there is a steep learning curve your first year of law school and your first year of practice. So if you can handle one well, you can probably handle the other

[Theworm788]

There is inarguably a positive correlation between intelligence and grades.

There is inarguably a positive correlation between work ethic and grades.

There is inarguably a positive correlation between intelligence and job performance.

There is inarguably a positive correlation between work ethic and job performance.

Therefore, yes, your grades are a reasonable indicator of how you will perform at work. To make the argument that you'll never have to research for 4 months then cram a 15 page memo into 3 hours of work is clearly wrong/bad/fallacious/stupid.

But don't forget, around median at a t10 is probably better than top 5% at a t4 or t3 so don't get down on yourself b'rah.

[LawIdiot86]

There is inarguably a positive correlation between intelligence and grades.

There is inarguably a positive correlation between work ethic and grades.

There is inarguably a positive correlation between intelligence and job performance.

There is inarguably a positive correlation between work ethic and job performance.

Therefore, yes, your grades are a reasonable indicator of how you will perform at work. To make the argument that you'll never have to research for 4 months then cram a 15 page memo into 3 hours of work is clearly wrong/bad/fallacious/stupid.

But don't forget, around median at a t10 is probably better than top 5% at a t4 or t3 so don't get down on yourself b'rah.

Speaking at slightly below median at a T14, I had this realization last year and it helped immensely. Compared to my friends in the top third/top 10%, they are likely to outperform me in that they'll obtain high profile clerkships, work for the top practice groups of the top firms, and be most likely to make partner. But that doesn't mean I'm outclassed by them. I've managed to adequately perform in a group generally composed of the top 5% of lawyers as measured by the LSAT. So have you. Even if we take 9 years to make partner in midlaw as opposed to 7 year in biglaw, we aren't totally unqualified and if we apply ourselves as we have, we will probably beat out the 95% who we beat in getting into law school.

[Blindmelon]

I don't agree with the assertion that partners usually have high honors or whatever. First off, people with better grades from better schools are more likely to get these big firm jobs in the first place... so the pool of people that could pipeline to partner is already a small subset of people. From there it depends on practice area. Appellate partners are going to of course be from Yale, top of the class at HCC, because they are the ones that get the supreme court clerkships and therefore the legitimacy. Look at non-appellate lit partners and they are not necessarily the top graduates of top schools. The V50 I summered at had partners that were Magna at Harvard, as well at partners that had no honors or just cum laude from T30s.

Also, people with good grades think that grades mean everything... people without good grades think the opposite. The reality of it is that grades get you in the door, but do not determine your ability as an attorney. If you think your A+ in torts or property means that you will write awesome briefs, then you're delusional. The caveat is that if you want to go into certain areas of law, you need the creds. for legitimacy.

[c3pO4]

I don't agree with the assertion that partners usually have high honors or whatever. First off, people with better grades from better schools are more likely to get these big firm jobs in the first place... so the pool of people that could pipeline to partner is already a small subset of people. From there it depends on practice area. Appellate partners are going to of course be from Yale, top of the class at HCC, because they are the ones that get the supreme court clerkships and therefore the legitimacy. Look at non-appellate lit partners and they are not necessarily the top graduates of top schools. The V50 I summered at had partners that were Magna at Harvard, as well at partners that had no honors or just cum laude from T30s.

Also, people with good grades think that grades mean everything... people without good grades think the opposite. The reality of it is that grades get you in the door, but do not determine your ability as an attorney. If you think your A+ in torts or property means that you will write awesome briefs, then you're delusional. The caveat is that if you want to go into certain areas of law, you need the creds. for legitimacy.

+1.

OP, this is why you are wrong. Selection bias. Grades don't matter for anything but the OCI dog and pony show. Outside of appellate, nobody will care. I'd even provide a counter theory to the rigorous analysis supplied here: those who put weight on their grades tend to do worse as lawyers, because they overvalue their academic history and fail to learn business development and other professional skills required to succeed in a law firm. How do I know? Hmm, let's just say I looked at a few firm profiles and noticed that the partners had... clients.

The only true statistical analysis of law firm partners, by Prof Henderson (same prof who identified the bimodal salary distribution), showed that GPA and Law Review are *negatively* correlated with making partner or being a successful lawyer.Attributes that were positively correlated included military service, work experience prior to law school, or for example, blue collar experience.

Your analysis could easily be flipped around to look at associates who washed out of firms before making partner. Guess what, most of them had high honors too. It's because firms hire more people with high honors.

Also, the only study of grade correlation with success in the workplace was done by Google, who still asks for GPA from even 50 year old managers and VP's. They found 0 statistically significant effect across all their departments. Page admitted that they still ask for GPA out of vanity, not because it predicts success.

Let me take a gander at OP's grades. They were probably good. OP wants to believe this makes them more likely to be a good lawyer.

Also, FYI, nobody makes partner anymore. That extra A- isn't going to change your 2% odds.

Grades don't matter.

[Anonymous User]

advertising grades on website is hilarious...
(but then, he works for a small firm catering to a small city - maybe different standards should be set)

--LinkRemoved--

you got a great grade - be proud of it and keep it to yourself.

[Blindmelon]

advertising grades on website is hilarious...
(but then, he works for a small firm catering to a small city - maybe different standards should be set)

--LinkRemoved--

you got a great grade - be proud of it and keep it to yourself.

That is the worst lawyer bio I have ever read.

[123kl]

God. That was painful.