呆子才能成为金牌律师

    职业心理学家、法律博客The People's Therapist的博主威尔•迈尔沃弗也曾经在Sullivan & Cromwell工作过。他认为，律所可以只聘用“老黄牛”来确保员工效力更长的时间。这些人“能承担漫长的工作时间，能被金钱和胜任合伙人的前景鼓舞。”他把这些人称作“书呆子”、“极客”和“呆子”，“没有其他什么兴趣”。

    很多律所都乐意招这样的人，但Williams & Connolly会定期具体分析，寻找那些不仅能给客户、也能给陪审团留下积极印象的律师。“只会高谈阔论理论和学术的人会在这儿面临更大的挑战，”Williams & Connolly的招聘合伙人麦格•基利表示。基利称，事实上，她的律所是在寻找“能在实务和个人层面进行辩驳的人”。

    当然，候选人对于从事法律行业也应该真正有兴趣。【建议：不要在面试中提起《法律与秩序》（ Law & Order）。】按迈尔沃弗的话说，要的就是那些能高高兴兴地“坐下来，争论如何更好地起草某些条款”的人。

    加州大学伯克利分校(UC Berkeley)教授玛约利•舒尔茨和谢尔顿•泽得克2008年9月的一份研究报告指出，基利说的有道理。报告试图帮助法学院发掘日后可能大有前途的律师，对众多可能预示未来律师职业能力的“预兆”进行了分析。典型的“好学者”标准，比如LSAT得分以及本科平均分，并不是反映日后律师职业能力的可靠指标。事实上，情景判断测试、个人经历以及7种特定人格特质——野心，适应力，社交能力，谨慎度，人际敏感度、好打探和学习方法——可以更好地预测应聘者日后作为律师的成功程度。

    当然，大多数律所都愿意聘用这些擅长社交、好打探的律师，但要在众多的应聘者中找到这些人并不容易。法律专业的学生们通常不会向面试考官承认，他们不喜欢拼命工作，他们对从事法律行业没有热情。

    迈尔沃弗指出，有几种背景可能预示未来会在大律所中获得成功：第一代律师，父辈不是最高法院大法官，也不是什么大律所的合伙人；第一或第二代移民；以及来自经济条件一般的家庭。她说，这些人进来的时候想法往往不一样。他们不会把获得金钱和成功视为必然，他们想的是“我必须要努力赚取这些，走出自己的路。”（财富中文网）

    Psychotherapist Will Meyerhofer, a former associate at Sullivan & Cromwell and author of the legal blog The People's Therapist, thinks firms can keep associates around longer by only hiring people he calls "workhorses." These are the ones "who can just handle the brutal hours, who are very motivated by the money and making partner." He describes these people as "nerdy," "geeky," and "dorky," and with "fewer outside interests."

    But while plenty of firms will happily snap up those recruits, Williams & Connolly regularly takes cases to trial and looks for attorneys who will not only make a positive impression on clients, but on juries as well. "Someone who can only talk on a purely theoretical, academic level, is going to be more challenged here," says Williams & Connolly hiring partner Meg Keeley. Instead, Keeley says, her firm seeks "someone who can make arguments on a practical and personal level."

    And, of course, candidates should also have a real excitement about the actual practice of law. (Tip: Don't mention Law & Order in an interview.) These are the people that Meyerhofer says will happily "sit and argue over the best ways to draft certain provisions."

    A September, 2008 paper from UC Berkeley professors Marjorie Shultz and Sheldon Zedeck suggests that Keeley is onto something. Attempting to help law schools identify promising future lawyers, the report's authors examined a number of "predictors" of lawyering effectiveness. Typical measures of "geekiness" like LSAT scores and undergraduate grade point averages were not reliable indicators of later lawyering abilities. Instead, situational judgment tests, biographical information, and seven specific personality traits -- ambition, adjustment, sociability, prudence, interpersonal sensitivity, inquisitiveness, and learning approach -- could better forecast an applicant's later success as an attorney.

    Of course, most firms would love to hire these social and inquisitive lawyers, but picking them out of the overflowing candidate pool is not always easy. Law students don't usually confess to their interviewers that they don't like to work hard or have no passion for practicing law.

    Woldow points to a few specific biographical indicators of future Big Law superstars: first-generation lawyers without legacies of Supreme Court justices and Big Law partners; first or second-generation immigrants; and people from modest economic backgrounds. These people, she says, often come in with different expectations. Instead of thinking they are due money and success, they think, "'I have to earn it and make my way.'"