LSAT Value? How Good an Indicator for Law Practice Success?

While we contemplate the biggest snow storm so far this year that is paralyzing a lot of the country, I am hunkered down before the fire catching up on my reading.  I came across an interesting article on the LSAT as a predictor of success in law practice, and I want to share it with you.  Check out  “Does Hiring Smart People Hurt Law Firms?” as seen in Above the Law.

This is a subject that has bothered me for a long time, and I am glad to see it getting some exposure.  Professor Henderson at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law is only confirming what so many of us suspected, however—that “smart” in terms of success in law practice means a whole lot more than doing well on the LSAT and going to the top-rated law schools.  By those traditional standards, many potentially excellent lawyers are overlooked at levels where their real talents could be valuable, and, according to this theory, big firms are being deprived of that talent.

There really are two issues at play in the article on Professor Henderson and his novel argument that hiring lawyers from the “best” law schools may be hurting big firm business.  One issue is the way that law school admissions genuflect to high LSAT scores.  A second issue is how law schools educate.  I am concerned with the former issue at this writing.

Most of us who have practiced law for any length of time know that classic “smarts” measured by LSAT scores and the schools that they lead to are not enough to support the kind of talent that is needed to be an effective attorney.  As Henderson points out, successful attorneys need to be “personable, collaborative, entrepreneurial, service oriented, and interested in contributing to the collective welfare of the law firm.”  These are all business skills, and they will pay the bills.  Big LSAT scores might be fun to talk about over a brandy, but it is people skills mixed with intelligence that will carry the day in the end.  Most clients and colleagues are just regular folks looking for a regular person to help them out with life-changing problems.

The homage paid by law school admissions departments to high LSAT scores presents an uneven playing field for the many excellent students who simply do not happen to be good standardized test takers.  We see them everywhere, and it lends largely to the dynamic transfer activity in law schools today.  Students who do not score well on the LSAT end up at top tier schools graduating with honors —-but they have to start at lower tier schools to demonstrate that they in fact are “smart,” even though their LSAT scores would indicate otherwise.  Good for them!  But, it should not have to be this way, and it is good to see some sunlight shed on the issue.  At the very least, more attention to this issue will allow the students who fight so hard for recognition to maintain their confidence and dignity.  AND, make no mistake about it, the law is very much a confidence game.

However, I am not naive enough to think that much will change.  The LSAT scores allow schools to make neat little piles:  Yes, No and Maybe.  It is efficient, and we know they are dealing with large numbers of applicants.  The “objective” approach is so much simpler, and the human fall-out is just too much work to even consider.  If Professor Henderson is correct, though, and law firms start to feel the deprivation of talent, change may be on the horizon.  After all, law firms hire from the same venerable institutions that impose the admissions standards in question.  If law firms ever start to switch their allegiance to schools based on practical business considerations, then what?  It is so sweet to ponder!