Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
I’m afraid you have missed my point entirely - so it would do you well to skip out answering this question altogether; hope that others can continue to chime in with more useful anecdotes
This is my point exactly. For those who are smart and high earners, that’s great. But what I meant was, if some are so smart, why aren’t they earning that much? One of the above posters shared that this could be because some partners are good at technical skills but poor at bookmarking - thanks for that great answer
|
Grades are also an imperfect reflection of one's intelligence - it rewards the hard workers who do well in an established structure. These people also make the best junior associates given that all that is required of junior associates is the ability to execute to the letter in accordance with the partner's/senior associate's instructions. Once a lawyer gains more experience, the expectation is for said lawyer to be able to exercise critical thinking to capture the issues at hand and to define the structure for execution - this is an entirely separate skill which law school does not teach (well). Usually, this is a capability that can only be detected by partners in their associates when these associates have been with the firm for a while (at least a year).
In other words, the abilities expected of partners are different from that of a junior associate. But partners usually hire the best that they have access to anyway, since it is a roll of the dice as to whether an associate possesses partner-level potential and it is impossible to tell at the interview stage.