<p>The relationship between intelligence and income (feel free to substitute “success as a lawyer” for income, although they’re not the same thing) is kind of like the relationship between height and ability to play quarterback. The best NFL quarterbacks tend to about about two standard deviations taller than the average male. They’re rarely significantly taller than that. Why not? </p>
<p>Those first two standard deviations are important, because quarterbacks have to be tall enough to see over their linemen to their receivers. Once they’ve reached that threshold, additional height doesn’t provide much of an advantage, and other factors become more important (having a competitive personality, arm strength, the quickness to elude defenders, the ability to see patterns developing in a rapidly changing environment). It’s not just that being 6’6" necessarily provides a disadvantage; the paucity of NFL quarterbacks who are three standard deviations taller than the mean may just be a function of there being 20 guys who are 6’3" for every one who’s 6’6", and therefore a much larger pool to search for the ones who have the other characteristics necessary to be a good quarterback. </p>
<p>Success as a lawyer requires a certain degree of intelligence; once that degree is achieved, other factors become more important, such as work ethic, likability, even acting ability for trial lawyers. </p>
<p>The father of two of my high school friends was a Harvard law school graduate who went to work as an assistant D.A. in a small city. He retired as an assistant D.A. in that same small city. I don’t know whether he went there thinking he’d be a big fish in a small pond; if so, he was disappointed. I always suspected that juries (and his co-workers) just didn’t like him very much.</p>