Transcript and resume analytics
What it tests. Elite cognitive markers via Legal Analysis & Writing grades (a proxy for written reasoning), core curriculum performance (Torts, Contracts, Civil Procedure) and undergraduate rigor.
Common traps. A sharp grade drop in core analytical classes raises foundational-reasoning red flags.
How to handle it. Keep core black-letter grades strong; high Latin honors or a STEM/quantitative undergraduate degree substitutes for any numerical-reasoning test.
Behavioral and situational alignment (the "SIT" equivalent)
What it tests. Prioritization, high-stakes communication, professional ethics and commercial judgment.
Common traps. Sounding overly academic, or passing blame to a hypothetical senior associate when a mistake occurs.
How to handle it. Frame every scenario with STAR; on conflicting deadlines from two partners, the right move is proactive transparency, not silently burning out or guessing who matters more.
Critical thinking and narrative evaluation
What it tests. Logic, synthesis of complex ideas and verbal articulation.
Common traps. Becoming defensive when challenged on a resume point; ramble-style answers with no thesis.
How to handle it. Treat each answer like an IRAC brief: state your point, back it with a specific example, tie it to why you fit Latham's lean-staffed teams.
Culture and "no ego" assessment
What it tests. Emotional intelligence, adaptability and collaboration.
Common traps. Arrogance, treating associates with less respect than partners, or no curiosity about the unassigned system.
How to handle it. Balance confidence with a clear desire to learn and support your team; Latham prizes elite execution without ego.