Good-Looking Lawyers Make More Money, Researcher Says

Happy Independence Day! Daily news updates resume on Monday.

Lawyer Pay

Good-Looking Lawyers Make More Money, Researcher Says

Posted Jan 2, 2008, 09:31 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

A researcher studying the impact of beauty has found that good-looking lawyers—like other professionals—make more money than their colleagues with lesser looks.

Economist Daniel Hamermesh of the University of Texas based his conclusion on the photographs of graduates of an unnamed law school. Those rated attractive in the photos went on to make more money than less-comely students, the Economist reports.

He also found that lawyers in private practice tended to be better looking than those who worked in government jobs.

Good looks could also translate into better rainmaking abilities, if Hamermesh’s research on Dutch advertising executives can be extrapolated to the legal profession. He found that advertising firms with the most good-looking executives also had the best revenues, when the results were adjusted for firm size.

In older studies in the U.S. and Canada, Hamermesh found that the premium for good looks, in all professions, was +5 percent for men and +4 percent for women.

A hat tip to Legal Blog Watch, which posted the story.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by Dave - 6 months, 1 day, 9 hours, 46 minutes ago

Hope they didn’t waste too much time or money on this study. Did someone really believe this doesn’t happen in every industry? Ever see a not-so-nice looking News Reporter become anchor? Ever look at the leaders of Corporate America? No ugly ducklings there. Face it, we are a biased society that is more comfortable with pretty people than those that are ugly. It’s sad but true that those that aren’t so blessed have to make it up in other ways. No News Here…
Posted by June - 6 months, 1 day, 9 hours, 29 minutes ago

Dave is completely correct. There’s no story here…
Posted by mike hunt - 6 months, 1 day, 8 hours, 57 minutes ago

How scientific can “Hammermesh”, the researcher, be? They’re just looking at old photos, and making subjective judgments from them? I had a look at my law school yearbook and was shocked to see both how good some people looked in the photos as compared to now (aging aside), and also on the other hand how a lot of people who looked awful (both in the photos as well as live--sitting in class) had turned out a lot better with age—kind of like fine wine, rather than smelly old cheese. This goes for both sexes. But I also wonder about the private practice vs government comment in the study. While it might be true for women --the best looking ones are in big firms rather than in government (which has always trolled the bottom), it is not for men. I know plenty of good looking guys from law school who probably spent more time chasing women than studying law, and as a result, their grades stunk. When it came time to getting jobs, they could not make the cut at the big firms, and rather than go into private practice for themselves (where they’d starve), they chose City Agency jobs, where they only work 37.5 hours a week, leaving plenty of free time for socializing (though not with the women lawyers, for obvious reasons). Although not rich, my buddies are happy, and look a lot better now than any of their richer peers in private practice. Sad thing, though--a few really homely twerps who made law review and got jobs at the top firms in town now have the best babes (whether as wives or just live-in girlfriends). I guess it pays off to be smart, whether you’re good looking or not, as the babes have hitched their wagon to the stars, with the rest of us taking the leftovers.
Posted by Matt - 6 months, 1 day, 8 hours, 27 minutes ago

In related studies, the sky is blue, and some professional athletes use performance-enhancing drugs. As stated earlier, I hope they did not spend too much money funding this research.
Posted by IP Lawyer - 6 months, 1 day, 8 hours, 26 minutes ago

Are you serious, Dave? Corporate America is full of ugly duckilings. Are you telling me Ted Turner is a good looking guy? Bill Gates? Yeah, there is the occasional good looking person that gets a break, but when he/she cannot do the work, their looks cannot save them. And I’ve seen plenty of ugly news anchors, especially in Boston.

Hmm, maybe us ugly people should apply for affirmative action?
Posted by Allan Bemanteel - 6 months, 1 day, 8 hours, 11 minutes ago

The article is right on. I know a beautiful woman lawyer, dumb as nails, who got a job at $150K in house, and another woman lawyer, smart as a whip but ugly as sin, who is struggling to hold a job making less than 1/2 of the first woman. I also know that in the case of the first (beautiful) woman, the company determined to get rid of an older ugly althoughpurportedly dysfunctional person. I don’t think uglyness is a protected category for discrimination, the last time I looked, but I dont profess to know much about EEOC stuff. If there are experts reading this, let me know.
Posted by Elmployment Lawyer - 6 months, 1 day, 7 hours, 59 minutes ago

There is no protection for unattractiveness, unless it stems from medically-related obesity.
Posted by prettyboy - 6 months, 1 day, 7 hours, 45 minutes ago

I dunno. I tend to think that looks is just half the story. Just common sense and experience talking here, but it seems to me that attractive people can tend towards being more outgoing (in a positive way), self-confident, and socialized than unattractive people. As a result, they likely interview better, leave a better impression, and go after what they want more aggressively than people who may suffer from self-confidence problems or have limited social skills.

but in any event, i deserve a raise, a big one.
Posted by pj - 6 months, 1 day, 7 hours, 39 minutes ago

I think the correlation between being good looking and making more money has more to do with social skills and personality. Usually, attractive people are better at interviews, have an easier time expressing themselves, and are simply more outgoing because of their looks.
Attractive people are used to attention and used to handling themselves in awkward situations. Unattractive people likely don’t have the people skills.
Posted by marym - 6 months, 1 day, 7 hours, 36 minutes ago

It always amazed me that the first women to get hired out of law school were the pretty ones regardless of how many classes they failed and had to retake. They could have paid me to do that study 15 years ago. No surprise on the results.
Posted by Paul - 6 months, 1 day, 7 hours, 35 minutes ago

Yawn. Why the hell does every other article I read on this site leave me with the impression that many in our profession (or at least the ones who cull these stories) have some serious insecurities? At 28, with a receding hairline, I seem to get taken more seriously the balder I get. I don’t always like the whole balding thing, but if that is the worst thing I have to consider in terms of physical appearance or impairments, then I count myself very fortunate, indeed.

Good looks probably help getting you hired initially, but I would bet that in the long term, clients and referrals are based on RESULTS, or at least the perception of the lawyer’s best efforts. How many clients do you think are going to say “You know, s/he charged me $10,000, and mishandled my case, but s/he was smoking hot! I’d recommend her/him to you!”

While I count many good-looking, smart, and hardworking people among my friends, NOBODY wants to work someone whose good looks alone have enabled them to progress beyond their true abilities.
Posted by sachin - 6 months, 1 day, 7 hours, 21 minutes ago

where are the pictures??
Posted by Hot Attorney - 6 months, 1 day, 7 hours, 18 minutes ago

No wonder I make so much money! I’m hot!
Posted by Robert - 6 months, 1 day, 7 hours, 3 minutes ago

I think there may be a misunderstanding of rhetorical devices here. Statistically significant does not necessarily mean a law or hard correlation, it just means there is a measurable tendancy for looks to be important.
Posted by Texas lawyer - 6 months, 1 day, 6 hours, 56 minutes ago

There is a story here. While it’s no surprise that the results from the study are that attractive people generally do better, the story is about a study that confirms it. To whatever degree the study provides confirmation is up for warm debate obviously. People will challenge the study. But its there, and that’s what was reported.

Many here seem to make more of the study than I’d imagine it shows. Sure, hard work, results, and the merits of your professionalism weigh in. But I’m betting that the researcher wouldn’t have gone so far as to say those things don’t matter. Rather, all other things being equal, good looks affect income.

The next question is “Why?” and some here have tossed their answer into the ring, such as hypothesizing that attractive people are more confident. Let me throw one in there. People with the power to hire want eye candy, and they’re happy to let go a few ugos to make room for better-looking women (and/or men).
Posted by Atty Elizabeth - 6 months, 1 day, 6 hours, 53 minutes ago

No surprise here, but I wonder how much they study looked at the extreme ends? I bet, on average, good looking professionals make more than homely professionals. Look at the two examples cited - Gates and Turner. They are on the extreme fringes of wealth, they lack sufficient peers to even qualify for the study. I also think that if you adjusted for location you would also see trends. Professionals in large coast states = better looking and higher paid. Professionals in the central states and small towns = uglier and less paid. For the smoking hot female associates, how much client contact do they really have during those first few, still attractive, years at Big Firm? Come on, they are not there for the clients…
Posted by Worthless study - 6 months, 1 day, 6 hours, 47 minutes ago

This study is just another sign of how shallow our society can be. Yes, looks are important but they are only a part of the picture. There are so many more things that are important about a lawyer other than just looks. I also find it intresting that this study was done by a non-lawyer who is not familiar with all the other factors that make succesful lawyers, i.e. oral and written skills. I personally know plenty of lawyers who aren’t the greatest looking people but who are absolutely awesome at what they do and who will get results for their clients, thereby getting the $. Looks should only be a part of the analysis, and not the entire analysis.
Posted by A - 6 months, 1 day, 6 hours, 39 minutes ago

I am going to make the big bucks then because I am so good looking
Posted by Mark - 6 months, 1 day, 6 hours, 38 minutes ago

Has Dave ever seen a picture of the CEO of EXXON?
Posted by Zoolander - 6 months, 1 day, 6 hours, 35 minutes ago

What about RIDICULOUSLY good-looking lawyers? But seriously, it was a well-known fact that being (1) astonishingly hot and (2) female at my upper-midwestern law school got you a good job more quickly than anyone else. Count your blessings, man.
Posted by Atty Elizabeth - 6 months, 1 day, 6 hours, 28 minutes ago

On a separate thought, I bet if you looked at retention rate for good-looking people, it would be inversely proportionate, which should therefore be a disincentive for firms to hire those people. See my comment about client contact for my opinion on that.
Posted by Government Attorney - 6 months, 1 day, 6 hours, 18 minutes ago

Of course, if I were paid a private firm salary I suppose I could afford manicures, the latest stylish clothes, makeovers, and a weekly trip to the salon… I also wonder about the parameters of the study. Perhaps the good looking law students came from wealthier families and thus had better dental care and nice smiles, cute clothes, acne treatments, and regular salon visits and were also possibly better connected when it came time to get a job. I don’t know how many times I heard “oh, my mom’s a judge and got me this great internship...” or similar line. There might be more going on than just a flip through the yearbook people.
Posted by Vickie Pynchon - 6 months, 1 day, 6 hours ago

People who are comfortable in their own skins; who are vital, active, happy, kind, and generous do not need the “halo effect” provided by pure physical beauty.

The research confirms that we like beautiful people because their beauty leads us to believe they are smart, talented, generous and good-natured.

As Coco Chanel famously said, “nature gives you the face you have at 20; it is up to you to merit the face you have at 50.”

When you live life joyously and authentically, you will possess the qualities people automatically ascribe to those with good looks.

More importantly, you will have become beautiful by being the kind of person people imagine our prettier cohorts to be.

For the research mentioned, see http://www.negotiationlawblog.com/2006/11/articles/social-psychology/the-power-of-beauty/
Posted by Amazed - 6 months, 1 day, 5 hours, 54 minutes ago

Wow, Elizabeth. Thanks for letting us know how beautiful people in California are. I guess you mid-west farm girls and guys and southerners don’t rate in her eyes.
Posted by Atty Elizabeth - 6 months, 1 day, 5 hours, 41 minutes ago

Amazed, I am a mid-west girl. Not quite technically a farm girl, but I do have horses so I guess that is close enough. And we don’t rate in their eyes. When people come to the heartland for law school, because they can’t get into a decent coast school, they can’t wait to get out of here. I’m not a native mid-westerner and I do have an above-average paying job here, so go ahead and continue to draw your own conclusions.
Posted by Devil's Advocate - 6 months, 1 day, 5 hours, 36 minutes ago

There are both positives and negatives to being good looking. For example, it may be easy to land a high-paying career but, especially if you are a woman, there will be a lot of jealousy in the workplace to deal with. This makes your job harder.
Posted by What Hot Lawyers?? - 6 months, 1 day, 5 hours, 13 minutes ago

OK—the comments to this article are just silly. Most large law firms (read: high paying) have minimum GPA requirements that they are fanatical about enforcing. No matter how attractive a candidate is, he/she will never get these jobs without the grades—it’s just not true that an attractive person could fail law school classes (or even get one C) and end up at certain firms.

Also, even if looks get certain women in the door, I think these women (even the smartest) struggle against the perception that they aren’t smart enough for the job and aren’t taken seriously. So looks often hurt women (though this is not true for men).

Finally, I work in a large LA firm and there is (in my opinion) a dearth of really attractive lawyers (including at my firm and others in the community).
Posted by C - 6 months, 1 day, 4 hours, 57 minutes ago

Correlation does not equal causation. I don’t know if the study accounted for this, but I know I’d dress more poorly if I had the luck to be working for government rather than private sector.
Posted by June - 6 months, 1 day, 4 hours, 55 minutes ago

This is really no new news at all since this notion of good - looking, attractive persons who will always be able to land a good job a reality in our society! Throughout my career, I see promotion opportunity is given to attractive blonde woman no matter how qualified she is for the job! I pray for the day that all employers will truly embrace the notion of providing job opportunity equal for all!
Posted by Chuck Payne - 6 months, 1 day, 3 hours, 57 minutes ago

The bias toward better looking men and women is as old as Australopithecus specimen, “Lucy”, out of Africa. This quite natural selective breeding at least in part accounts for the emergence of Homo Sapiens. Together with better diet and healthcare, it also accounts for why modern people generally are more attractive than their ancestors of a mere 2 or 3 generations ago. Even so, those individuals like leading physicist Stephen Hawking stands as a beacon to remind us that at this late stage of human-kind’s presence on earth, we should, and I believe we are, coming to recognize that there is far greater value in a person than his or her looks. That said, I would love to talk to him and learn from him, but I confess, were I a woman it would give me pause to consider being married to him. Great admiration and respect is due those men and women who DO marry and spend a lifetime loving and caring for people who are physically unattractive, for they are better people than most of us for it.
Posted by Maddie - 6 months, 1 day, 3 hours, 5 minutes ago

I can’t believe that I just wasted 0.2 of my billing day reading this drivel - people, lets all just go back to work.
Posted by Pat - 6 months, 1 day, 1 hour, 33 minutes ago

I guess I believe the study. I’m mediocre looking and I make mediocre money.
Posted by Model - 6 months, 1 day, 1 hour, 6 minutes ago

I look great and I do get paid. If I don’t the best argument for the jury, I just smile a lot and it takes care of it.
Posted by fredporsche - 6 months, 23 hours, 54 minutes ago

Hey, I’ve found that those who don’t carry the beauty goods find other ways to leverage: fredporsche, . . . . get it? We lawyers are supposed to be creative.
Posted by Randy Clapp - 6 months, 23 hours, 22 minutes ago

Read the last sentence, where good looks resutls in a 4-5% “premium”. I’ll bet that good old intellegence, hard work and honesty result in much higher “premiums”. Of course, those qualities are hard to see in graduate photos!
Posted by lamepatrol - 6 months, 21 hours, 1 minute ago

First, that study is a bunch of bunk. Why? Because I work in a snotty high paid private practice law firm and there are PLENTY of not so hot looking people (male and female) who get paid big bucks. Second, in regard to women, I do believe that if you have 2 women with exactly the same credentials (i.e. GPA, law review, etc.) and one is better looking than the other, that the better looking one will most likely get the job. However, with that said, if you read studies of big law firms, those women are GONE if they don’t produce the billable hours requirements (I’ve seen many pretty young woman attorneys who are axed) and the proof is that rarely do you see woman in partnership track, and if they are on the partnership track, I CAN GUARANTEE THAT IT’S NOT BECAUSE THEY’RE HOT!
Posted by lamepatrol - 6 months, 21 hours ago

By the way, Paul #11. I agree the most with your post…
Posted by lamepatrol - 6 months, 20 hours, 53 minutes ago

Oh, and one LAST thing. In response to someone above who was correlating goodlooking people and being on television. HAVE YOU LOOKED AT DONALD TRUMP LATELY? He’s been on a plethora of television ranging from his own show The Apprentice, being on Saturday Night Live, and countless commercials and even had a show on MTV where he was regularly featured (Pageant Place). Hummmmm…
Posted by Alma Fedora - 6 months, 7 hours, 34 minutes ago

This is interesting stuff. As an “average” woman, I can tell you that I am often passed right over when I am in a meeting with my more attractive (though not really any brighter) blond classmate. Men think through their weenies, and if that means bringing in a cutie (whether for themselves, or their clients), that’s the price of doing business. I admit to being a bit jealous; who wouldnt want the attention. I know, however, that in the long run, my classmate will not look so great after 4-5 years of heavy billing, unless she marries a partner or something, which she is more likely to do than me, since I am not as pretty as her. I will just sit down and do my job and hope for the best. Maybe I’ll hit the jackpot too, though right now, I can’t think past getting my 60 hours billed this week. Good luck to all the rest of us!
Posted by Nancy - 6 months, 7 hours, 27 minutes ago

What piques my curiosity is this: Did the University of Texas or some other entity actually provide funding for this “research”? What flies under the banner of “research” is (or should be) an embarrassment to the research community and an insult to the public—even the average Joe or Jane Schmoe could proffer this common sense observation.
Posted by Your Boss - 5 months, 4 weeks, 17 hours, 44 minutes ago

This is your managing partner. I don’t care how you look, as long as you can fill out the billing sheet. You should be billing right now and not reading the ABA Journal...unless you can bill it to a client.

-Your Boss

Ps. You should have taken the government job. A lot less money, but a 40 hour work week and holidays with no billable hours.
Posted by sjc - 5 months, 4 weeks, 15 hours, 38 minutes ago

yet another reason why i think that i am underpaid—HA!
Posted by Cynic - 5 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 10 hours, 27 minutes ago

Ah, the Nazis in Hell must be smiling - blonde, blue-eyed and athletic wins out again. And to those who think ability can trump looks - sorry, but no matter how capable you are, if the individual is a pretty boy/pretty girl who also comes from a “socially prominent” family (read - can bring in lots of business), they can go to Southwest Podunk State lawschool and finish with the proverbial “gentlemen’s C” GPA - and not only will they be hired at a snooty white-shoe firm, they’ll be a partner within six years.
Posted by Takes money to make money - 5 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 2 hours, 36 minutes ago

I agree with those who have pointed out that this study just confirms what is widely acknowledged—better looking people get hired first, therefore they’ll snag the best jobs and the best paychecks.
I also think it’s worth pointing out wealth = good looks in more ways than just regular visits to the spa and hairdresser. If a kid grows up poor, lacking proper medical and/or dental care, that person is a lot more likely to enter the workforce with a picket-fence smile full or cavity-ridden snaggle-teeth, or maybe some asymetrical features, or some other significant impediment to attractiveness. Poor people eat unhealthier food that the well-to-do eat, so poor people are more likely to be fat and unhealthy and unattractive.
This study just shows another way that wealth begets wealth.
Posted by Joseph - 5 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 17 hours, 56 minutes ago

I don’t buy it. Not because I’m one of the unattractive “snaggly tooth” types, who was raised poor and ate bad food and developed no social skills, but because all I have to think about is how the myth in law school was that in order to be successful, you had to be in the selfish, ugly and possessing no social skills crowd. Just look at the professors! These men and women, hardly identifiable as such on first glance, are at the top of the game starting at $150k a year and without the corporate schedule.

I know plenty of ugly wealthy people and plenty of attractive people who barely have two nickels to rub together.

My guess is that if the exact same article were written about how ugly attorneys were more successful because opposing counsel would rather pay a larger amount of money and settle in order to look at them less, there’d be a lot of agreement.

If anything, this article merely confirms that the grass seems greener for those who are considered to be more attractive. Yet, don’t we all know the truth, at least when speaking about men? The wealthier and more successful he is, the more physically appealing he looks also.

So, the real question is this: do people who obtain success become better looking?
Posted by Antonia - 5 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 15 hours, 17 minutes ago

If you read the entire article published by the Economist (referenced above), you will see that the study also found that beautiful people are also smarter than the less good looking. It’s evolution talk!
Posted by Hot? I think NOT! - 5 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 9 hours, 3 minutes ago

I completely disagree with the conclusion that more attractive lawyers have higher paying jobs. The people who got the offers from the biglaw firms at my law school were/are the most unattractive dorks I’ve ever seen. While not trying to sound conceited, I have had biglaw firms tell me that I would be perfect for the job if only I graduated in at least the top 1/3 of my class. Therefore, I was passed up because I didn’t have the grades. Most biglaw firms have some cut-off.
Posted by Geoff - 5 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 17 hours, 41 minutes ago

I read an interesting study on the subject that explained the reason for the difference. Good-looking people (at least the competent ones) are more likely to receive the personalized attention or mentorship that leads to better paying jobs. If two classmates are equally skilled but one is more attractive, the more attractive student is likely to receive more (and probably better) individual attention. We all know that individual, personalized time spent with professors is essential before exams and in making contacts in the professional world. Thus attractive students with get better grades, have skills their other classmates don’t, and make better contacts during law school. It is ineveitable that these benefits would result to better paying jobs. This is the same no matter what the field.
Posted by Nick - 5 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 7 hours, 45 minutes ago

What bothers me most is the entire basis of the study. Who decides which person is more attractive and which is less? It’s not an objective thing that can be measured, like height, for instance. The whole basis of the study falls apart right at the beginning.

P.S., I’m damn good looking and make lots of money, but my wife disagrees on both counts.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Lawyer Pay