I recall, fairly early in my career, being in a firm on the day that most of its summer associate class started. The partner I was with, who was on his firm's hiring committee, was understandably proud of these aspiring lawyers and spouted off all the key statistics as to how many were on law review, the percentage who were in top-20 schools, and some tidbits about those who were at the top of their class. I was duly impressed, as it was the type of class that would have been the envy of virtually any law firm.

As time has passed, I have observed the career arcs of numerous lawyers, many of whom I have known since they commenced practicing. There are many takeaways, one of which is my anecdotal assessment that there is not a direct line correlation between academic achievements in law school and high-level success in law firms.

While sports do not provide a perfect analogy, allow me to discuss how professional baseball teams draft entry level players, as there are valuable corollaries that tie into the hiring of summer associates and junior level lawyers.

High school and college players who can throw a ball very hard, even up to 100 miles per hour (or more) garner a lot of attention at draft time, as do hitters who can smack tape measure home runs. Much like those in law school, these are the ones who are considered at the top of their class, especially when they are evaluated based on their numbers.

A pitcher who throws exceedingly hard, very well may be the next Nolan Ryan and a future Hall of Famer; ditto for the slugger who jacks awe-inspiring homers. Successful teams, though, have learned that it is more important that a pitcher has a fastball with movement, even if it is a tick slower. The same holds true for the big bopper, as someone who makes more contact and has greater plate discipline, could be much more likely to have an outstanding career, even if he hits balls that don't go quite as far as the power hitting slugger.

In addition, intangible characteristics are also considered, in varying degrees. Team-first players, who become rarer each year, have a lot of value, as do those with great character and resiliency, especially since the progression through the minors and in the big leagues is rife with highs and lows that test the resolve of even the most determined person.

Retrospective evaluations of drafts have generally revealed that many of the truly ascendant stars in the sport were not the phenoms of their entry classes. Some of those statistical outliers reached the upper echelon, but many of the biggest stars were drafted later. Some in the latter group simply blossomed later, while many had excellent skills but also heavily drew on the depth of their intangible attributes, which played a key role in their careers.

This often happens in the legal world. Some of the “elites” shine in private practice as brightly, or even more than they did in law school. Those who fit this bill, though, rarely excel solely because of their intelligence or pure legal prowess. The legal profession of today demands excellence in other areas, if for no other reason than the reality that work no longer flows, virtually unimpeded, from large, institutional clients (as it did in other eras).

Today, private practice lawyers in our much more business-oriented legal industry, also need intangible capabilities, just a few of which include: strong interpersonal skills, which are frequently crucial in developing business, an intense drive to succeed, the verve to take risks, albeit ones that are not foolish, a propensity to get out of one's comfort zone, and an indefatigable nature that enables one to maintain balance through the many challenges that define a career.

This was amply illustrated in my first year of recruiting, when I received an anguished call from an eighth-year lawyer in a highly regarded AmLaw 100 firm. This double-Ivy educated lawyer, who ranked near the top of his undergrad and law school classes, handed me reviews that extolled what a brilliant writer and strategist he was and applauded him for his tireless work ethic. All the plaudits he earned in school had made him an outstanding lawyer, at least with respect to technical prowess. His later-stage reviews, though, began to comment on his deficiencies in some of those intangible realms, mentioned, above.

The upshot was that a highly intelligent and skillful lawyer, who would have made partner in almost any other era, and essentially was drafted high when he came out of law school, was kindly being nudged toward the door.

I have seen this play out many times, just as I have observed, through my recruiting practice, and watching the progressions of others I know or practiced with, that some of the biggest hitters in firms, great managing partners, and others of significant accomplishment, have been those who were not in that elite group in law school.

Many of these lawyers are every bit as bright, or even smarter, than those who ranked higher. There could have been valid reasons why they were lower in their class, such as having to work during school or needing to grapple with family or personal issues that impacted their studying. Regardless of the reason, I have repeatedly seen that those in this group who have “knocked it out of the park” in private practice, not only are outstanding lawyers, but are off-the-charts in many of the intangible categories mentioned, above. Those strengths have played a crucial role in enabling them to excel at a very high level and become invaluable members of their firms.

My thesis is that firms that do not heavily weigh these intangibles, and overly rely on law school numbers, are making a mistake. Considering the investment that is made in summer associate programs and in junior lawyers, many of whom do not begin to turn a profit for their firms until they reach mid-level status, it is a very costly mistake, economically and otherwise, if those lawyers should flame out.

My recommendation is that firms should set a threshold that needs to be met with respect to aptitude and achievements. Firms know the space they are in, what their clients demand, and generally what minimum level of legal prowess simply has to exist. Assuming someone meets or exceeds that baseline, the intangible factors that define success in their organizations should be weighed, likely at a much heavier level than was accorded in years gone by.

A firm doesn't need a consultant to tell it what those intangible factors are for their particular organization—there is a bountiful amount of evidence it can tap into by evaluating the skills of those who have become its crucial members today and in recent times. A lot of attention will understandably be paid to partners and leaders in the firms, but, remember, to stick with our baseball analogy, that a team doesn't have nine shortstops or pitchers on the field at any one time. There are service partners and other lawyers who are part of the glue of a firm who are also indispensable. Factoring in their attributes is also important.

My educated guess is that you can find many of these intangible factors on the evaluation forms that firm interviewers have to complete after meeting with a law student or junior level lateral candidate. When it comes time to narrow a highly competitive field of candidates, it is much easier to simply put more weight on rank and honors, rather than grapple with balancing intangible factors.

A college president, whose applicant levels meteorically rose after sports success made it a “hot school,” admitted this to me. He noted that, while the school still wanted students who excelled inside and outside of the classroom, it would have been far easier to raise the SAT and class ranking requirements for admission, rather than try to separate students in those intangible categories. He noted that this would have been problematic, as it likely would have changed the type of student body that defined it for well over a hundred years.

To his credit, and that of his institution, the school buckled down and did the heavy lifting of weeding through the intangibles and did not simply put more weight on the numbers. Law firms that want to produce bumper crops of junior level lawyers who will eventually blossom into their key members in the future, would benefit by doing the same thing.

Frank Michael D'Amore is the founder of Attorney Career Catalysts, http://www.attycareers.com, a Pennsylvania-based legal recruiting and consulting firm that focuses on law firm mergers and partner placements. He is a former partner in an AmLaw 200 firm, general counsel in privately held and publicly traded companies, and vice president of business development. He can be reached at [email protected].