Morrison on Metrics: Inter-Quartile Range, Mode and Range
It's important to consider all mathematical descriptors when determining metrics.
December 19, 2010 at 07:00 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Earlier this year, this column explored two ways to describe data dispersion: trimmed means and weighted averages. Those two are siblings in a large family. Others members of the family include the inter-quartile range, the mode and the range. Those three I explain here and in a later column I will turn to standard deviations. The family of mathematical descriptors makes a difference to general counsel who want to master business-speak and who want to extract the most regarding their department's data.
Start with inter-quartile calculations. When you order a set of numbers from largest to smallest, the middle number in that ranking is the median. Midway between the median and the lowest number stands the first quartile figure; midway between the median and the highest figure stands the third quartile figure. The difference between the first quartile and the third quartile becomes the inter-quartile difference. Average the first and third quartile figures and you have the inter-quartile mean. Inter-quartiles avoid the unusual and misleading data points at either end of a ranked list.
Consider some from the 701 law departments in the fourth release of General Counsel Metrics (GCM). The inter-quartile difference for lawyers was 20, for paralegals 6, and other legal staff 10. If you calculate the average of the two quartile figures they are for lawyers 13, for paralegals 4, and for all other legal staff 6. These numbers tell, for example, that this set of law departments has much more variability on the lawyer side than on the non-lawyer side. Similar calculations could be done to compare industries or countries on the spread of their benchmark metrics.
Next, divide the difference between each of those quartile pairs by the median. Thus, the first quartile number of lawyers was 3 while the third quartile was 23, so the difference was 20. The median being 7 for lawyers, 7 divided into 20 leaves 2.85. The calculation for paralegals resulted in 3.0 and for other staff 3.33. Thus, in terms of spread in relation to median, the three sets of staff numbers were quite similar. In fact, lawyers were even more tightly clustered.
The mode of a set of numbers is simply the number that is most common. Not surprisingly, in the GCM group, the mode for lawyers is one. More law departments had a single lawyer than any other number of lawyers. For paralegals the mode is also one and for other staff, zero. The mode often does not tell very much about a set of numbers but here it tells us once again that many law departments are small. It also says that many small law departments are interested in benchmark metrics.
The range states the difference between the largest number in a set and the smallest. For those law departments that provided revenue figures, the GCM range was more than $285 billion. In any benchmark set from law departments the range tends to be the largest revenue, number of lawyers or legal staff, or whatever in the set.
With these math tools, it is possible to describe many characteristics of a set of data regarding variability. The descriptions let you understand the data and compare it to other sets as well as to your own figures.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
GC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
Trending Stories
- 1SDNY US Attorney Damian Williams Lands at Paul Weiss
- 2Litigators of the Week: A Knockout Blow to Latest FCC Net Neutrality Rules After ‘Loper Bright’
- 3Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 4Norton Rose Sues South Africa Government Over Ethnicity Score System
- 5KMPG Wants to Provide Legal Services in the US. Now All Eyes Are on Their Big Four Peers
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250