Prof. Daniel Hamermesh of the Univ. of Texas has studied links between physical beauty and a person’s success. Some of his research about lawyers is summarized in the Economist, Dec. 22, 2007 at 54. For example, he analyzed students of an American law school and found that “those rated attractive on the basis of their graduation photographs went on to earn higher salaries than their less well-favoured colleagues.”
Worse follows. “Moreover, lawyers in private practice tended to be better looking than those working in government departments.” Is it the plight of the in-house community not only to be overworked and under-paid but also to be cosmetically challenged?
The article concludes that “beauty is a real marker for other, underlying characteristics such as health, good genes, and intelligence” (See my posts of Nov. 9, 2006 about the advantages of height; and April 7, 2006 about looks and height.)
Do in-house lawyers have to face this ugly truth? Revolte face