Beyond Biglaw: Testing For Practical Intelligence
New research could provide law firms with a useful tool for identifying problem lawyers.
By now, the newest crop of associates has begun to settle into their jobs at firms nationwide. There is no doubt that the transition from law school to actual legal practice is a difficult one, and the difficulty is compounded for many new associates by the fact that many law firms are a lot better at picking talent than they are at integrating it into the firm.
For their part, firms are always wary about new associate hires, particularly recent graduates, because of the (perhaps overblown) concern that these new lawyers are the firm’s weakest link the minute they cross the building lobby for their first day of work. The perception, which is actually a misplaced one in many cases, is that the chances of a catastrophic mistake are highest with new associates. But smart firms also make sure that new associates are never put into a position to make a catastrophic mistake in the first place.
In fact, there is a good argument that the risk of a catastrophic mistake by a lawyer increases based on a commensurate increase in that lawyer’s experience and level of responsibility for client or firm administrative matters. At the same time, firms are rightly concerned about quickly identifying problem associates, so that their shortcomings can be addressed before they embarrass the firm in some way. Identifying associates who innately know what not to do is a good start on that front, and testing to measure that aptitude is therefore valuable for firms.
Generative AI In Legal Work — What’s Fact And What’s Fiction?
Of course, the idea of identifying problem hires early is not limited to the legal industry. I recently saw some interesting research that could provide both firms and associates (or new/lateral partners for that matter) a tool for early identification of potential problems. In fact, the research results themselves suggest that utilizing this tool upon intake of new lawyers (or other employees) at the firm will result in maximum effectiveness. But even experienced personnel can benefit as well from periodic testing of their disaster-avoidance capabilities.
The key intellectual framework behind the research I saw was constructed on two basic principles. First, that good employees can come in a variety of flavors, making it difficult to isolate precise characteristics that are absolutely essential for success in a firm environment. Second, that the most dangerous thing for a business, particularly one in a service industry, is employees who demonstrate bad judgment. Worse still is the risk that a single employee’s bad judgment could cause irreparable harm to a firm’s reputation or client relationships.
With these principles in mind, the researchers sought to identify the riskiest employees — but not by their possession or lack of certain skills or characteristics. Instead, the researchers decided to test the ability of any given employee to select the worst solution to any given problem. Employees who correctly identified the worst options were more likely to succeed, and testing for this ability is potentially superior to testing for the ability to choose the best answer to any given problem. In this way, employees who performed poorly could be flagged as potentially faulty in their ability to demonstrate good judgment, and remedial actions could be taken.
The researchers dubbed the test as a way to measure “practical intelligence,” though we can easily see that this test is just a way of isolating the disaster-prone in any given group. For example, any lawyer who consistently, or even just once, picks the absolute worst approach to dealing with an issue is a lawyer with impaired judgment. Considering that most of a lawyer’s value to clients and firms is their ability to demonstrate good judgment, a poor result on this test would suggest that any lawyer who earns such a result would be fighting an uphill battle in terms of career success and longevity. Worse, any lawyer who performs poorly on such a test could rightly be considered “dangerous,” even if their performance record was absolutely clean up to that point. It may seem a little counterintuitive to reduce an associate’s prospects to their disaster-avoidance ability, but it is an essential initial hurdle that any lawyer needs to successfully clear.
Sponsored
The Business Case For AI At Your Law Firm
How Transactional Lawyers Can Better Serve (And Maintain) Their Clients
AI’s Impact On Law Firms Of Every Size
The Business Case For AI At Your Law Firm
Because the ability to demonstrate good judgment is so fundamental, firms should consider some variant of this testing for any new lawyers who join the firm. In particular, recent law school graduates would perhaps benefit the most, since there is still time to train them to demonstrate better judgment, free from any bad habits or ego accumulated over years of prior practice.
Ultimately, the earlier and more often a lawyer’s judgment is tested, the better — especially in this age of open communication and alternative media, where mistakes are both magnified and made public seemingly instantaneously, compounding their reputation-damaging effects. Many firms like to set minimum thresholds in terms of their hires, whether based on law school performance, test scores, or other metrics. Testing for practical intelligence is likely just as important, especially for firms that want to have the ability to bail on any misplaced investments in bad hires at the earliest opportunity. One of the building blocks of success, after all, is the ability to avoid perpetuating mistakes.
Please feel free to send comments or questions to me at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or via Twitter: @gkroub. Any topic suggestions or thoughts are most welcome.
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 gkroub@kskiplaw.com or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.
Sponsored
Generative AI In Legal Work — What’s Fact And What’s Fiction?
