Canada's Top 25 Corporate Litigators

Insensitive, harsh, greedy, self-centred, egotistical, emotionally deficient, loud-mouthed extroverts—so you think you know litigators? Think again! Twenty-five litigators, identified by Lexpert as the top corporate litigators in Canada (see chart on page 66), were the subject of an innovative research project to discover “what makes them tick.” They were tested, interviewed and scrutinized in more than 60 hours of face-to-face meetings using two of the best psychological profiling tools, EQi (Emotional Intelligence) and 16 PF (Personality Factor) assessments. Our findings smashed the stereotypes and redefined why and how top litigators do what they do.

10 Key Findings
1. Group profile: fiercely independent self-starters, sensitive, private introverts. Highly creative/abstract thinkers. Moderately trusting optimists. So much for stereotypes!
2. Not primarily motivated by money or power. Are motivated by self-actualization and mastery, making a contribution, peer recognition and winning “good” fights.
3. Are “lifers” who make conscious long-term career commitments. Have an incredible work ethic and are generally fit and strong.
4. Highly competitive, but winning right cases and tough cases more important than simply winning. Hate losing cases they think they should have won.
5. “Think” differently than most people. Thinking style is opposite to that of the general population, 80 per cent of whom are concrete, practical thinkers. More than 90 per cent of our test group of 25 litigators are abstract creatives who conceptualize patterns and are future, end-game focused.
6. Are closet introverts with well-socialized people skills—they derive energy/ideas from their inner world and require reflective alone time to do their best problem solving (they put minds in gear before mouths in motion). Team collaboration may not come easily even when they value it.
7. Defy the “tough-minded” stereotype. This group is significantly sensitive—they read other people’s emotions, factor emotional considerations into their decisions and are empathetic. They also have an appreciation for aesthetic, refined interests, i.e., art, sciences, music and travel.
8. Have above average Emotional Intelligence and their specific key strengths are:
• independence/self-directed;
• optimism;
• reality testing; and
• stress endurance.
9. Are likely “high-maintenance” people. Require strong support systems in their family and work environment. Demands on them are high and they tend to have high expectations of others. All are married, many 20+ years.
10. High IQ—Intelligence. We did not test for IQ, but curriculum vitae and in-depth interviews provide significant evidence of this. All finished in top third of their law school class.

John A. Campion Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
Earl A. Cherniak, Q.C. Lerners & Associates
Neil Finkelstein Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Thomas Heintzman, Q.C., O.C. McCarthy Tétrault LLP
James A. Hodgson Hodgson Tough Shields DesBrisay O\'Donnell LLP
C. Clifford Lax, Q.C. Lax O\'Sullivan Scott LLP


Differences
There are likely more differences than similarities within this group. They come from different backgrounds, their style and appearance are different, they express various political views and, most importantly, present 25 distinct personalities. “I grew up in a fourth-generation family of lawyers” (David Scott). “I grew up in lower Downsview” (Sheila Block). “As a youngster, I preached with Dr. Goth, whose sermons could set the world on fire” (John Campion).

Emotional Intelligence (EQ)
Over the past 10 years Emotional Intelligence has been tested and proven to be a highly accurate predictor of top talent and career life success. As our charts show (Fig. 1-3 on page 70 and 74), this group of litigators (24 out of 25 completed the assessment) show a clear pattern of higher than average Emotional Intelligence. They validate the theory and research to date that people who are more successful in life have a set of non-cognitive skills that enable them to adapt and respond to a constantly changing and challenging environment. EQ explains why some people achieve more. It also points to the critical skills that enable them to do so, which are:
1. Knowing oneself (i.e., strengths, weaknesses and what you can and cannot do successfully)—called Intrapersonal skills.

133-covercht1-216x164

2. Being able to develop and sustain positive supportive relationships with others that both contribute to larger efforts and extend one’s individual effectiveness—called Interpersonal skills.
3. Having a high level of endurance for stress (and all of the crap that grinds others down) and being able to manage stress productively—called Stress Management skills.
4. Being flexible and adaptable to change and adversity. Always having a back-up game plan—called Adaptability skills.
5. Having a positive outlook and energy. People who believe good things can happen are more likely to make them happen—called General Mood skills.

Fig. 1—Comparison of Star Litigator EQ compares the Emotional Intelligence of these litigators to the general population and to other lawyers in our database. As the charts show, they score higher across the board, but how much higher? At first glance, the total EQ with the strengths and weaknesses rolled up is not that impressive—this group scores in the top third of the population.

Often, however, it is one or two key areas of strength that are the determining factors. For litigators, the area of greatest strength appears to be their high levels of independence, which are in the top 16 per cent of the population, followed closely by their optimism, reality testing and stress tolerance, which are in the top 23 per cent of the population. These four skills provide early leading indicators that may very well predict higher than average success for those who enter litigation.

Another important point is that that which is measured usually improves over time. IQ, which increases with each generation, is an excellent example. Common sense tells us that when we measure something it becomes more important to us, we become more consciously aware and usually begin to make efforts to improve. In this regard, EQ holds significant opportunity for the next generation of lawyers, should they choose to allow it into their conscious career-life development.

Allan J. Lenczner, Q.C. Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin
Ronald G.d Slaght, Q.C. Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin
Benjamin Zarnett Goodmans


Motivation
It was apparent from the outset that the demands and nature of corporate litigation require higher than average levels of motivation. The legal profession already self-selects for motivation, but litigation leaders require even higher levels of it. The four principal drivers (described at length throughout this article) identified by way of the psychological profiling and interviews were:

1. Self actualization through mastery;
2. Achievement—making a contribution;


133-covercht2-216x131

3. Recognition and opportunity to work with people they admire;

4. Competition—winning hard fights and good fights.


133-covercht3-216x150

Litigators do battle for a living. Granted, their wars are fought in courtrooms, but the stakes and stress are high, the hours long, the need for planning and strategizing unrelenting. There was clear evidence of extremely high levels of motivation with this test group. Their “long” résumés presented track record after track record of achievement, i.e., dozens of publications, an Order of Canada, past presidents of The Advocates’ Society, leaders of all kinds of community and charitable causes. The “track records” describe people who are motivated to achieve not only within the boundaries of their profession, but outside their profession as well.


David W. Scott, Q.C. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Mortimer G. Freiheit Stikeman Elliot
Pierre Bourque, Q.C. Desjardins Ducharme Stein Monast

Self-actualization Through Mastery
“I got into law and fell in love. I’ve never been tempted to leave. You wouldn’t leave a woman you love” (Pierre Bourque). “The intellectual dance is the joy of it…what really appeals to me is the opportunity to take on a problem, deal with what is there, i.e., the facts, and turn them into something that sometimes results in a new principle of law. It’s the chance to create law through real live principles” (Ronald Slaght). “I love the stories and using logic and flexibility to shape the facts. Advocacy is a very seductive and masterful device” (Sheila Block). “I love the cut and thrust of a courtroom” (Alan Lenczner and Neil Finkelstein). “This is a calling” (Earl Cherniak).

These quotes are representative of every interview conducted for this study. These people love what they do. They find a higher and meaningful purpose in which to actualize their potential. It is not simply about work. Many continue to practise long after most people retire.

This particular type of professional “drive” was examined by Timothy Butler and James Waldroop, two Harvard psychologists, who concluded that top talent continue to “do what they do” only “if the job matches their deeply imbedded life interests…long held, emotionally driven passions, intricately entwined with personality and thus born of an indeterminate mix of nature and nurture. Deeply imbedded life interests do not determine what people are good at—they drive what kinds of activities make them happy” (Harvard Business Review, Sept./Oct. 1999). As David Haigh explains: “The law continues to challenge me in every way. It’s training for life.”

Raynold Langlois, Q.C. Langlois Gaudreau
Gérald Tremblay, Q.C. McCarthy Tétrault LLP
William S. Berardino Berardino & Harris


The EQ competence that is most significant for this group of 25 corporate litigators is Intrapersonal. Self-regard, independence, assertiveness, independence and self-actualization, are often referred to as “gateway skills” because it is through high levels of self-awareness that individuals can achieve the most growth and change.

There was one interesting and somewhat surprising finding in the group EQ results. While self-assessments of self-actualization are high, they are not as high as other skills or as high as the records of accomplishments of these individuals would indicate. We (the author and Dr. Steven Stein of Multi-Health Systems) spent considerable time re-checking all our data (interviews against assessments and C.V.s) because normally assessment findings validate other findings.

We can suggest only one explanation for this discrepancy. These individuals likely have much higher self-expectation levels than others and so self-assessed that they have not yet fully realized these expectations (i.e., they see themselves as works in progress). Three hundred and sixty degree assessments from professional colleagues is the only means of validating this explanation. While we have started this process with some of the group, we do not at this time have any score results.

Achievement
Achievement is defined as a belief that individual effort counts and a desire to make a positive difference wherever possible. David McLelland’s life-long research into what is “achievement” reveals much that is relevant to our group of litigators. High needs for achievement surface only when people believe they can influence outcomes. They get a bigger kick out of winning or solving difficult problems than they get from money or praise. They are most appreciative of feedback that relates to their efforts and progress than feedback about personal characteristics (i.e., how helpful/smart they are).

“Litigation both preserves and enhances our social systems. The plight of an individual can change the law. A simple example: I once represented a woman who was having a baby and did not want the hospital to put drops in her newborn’s eyes, which at the time was a legal requirement. As a result of her challenge, the law was changed. Sometimes the system really works” (David Scott). “Causes add meaning to what we do” (Irwin Nathanson). “I feel very strongly that I owe a responsibility to give back; that’s how the system works” (Earl Cherniak).

“Early in my career, while working on some commercial deal, I was approached one night by one of the cleaning crew of our office to help his sister. His sister had had a baby and woke up blind; not exactly my specialty at the time. I asked my doctor, Dr. Peter Gilette, to have a look at her hospital file. When the hospital refused, he got suspicious, got on a bus and went to the hospital to find out what happened. It turned out that the woman had lost a tremendous amount of blood. We knew we had a case, but I suspected the family had no money to pay so I went to see Heward Stikeman. His advice to me was ‘every once in a while it’s good to decide in advance what you might want to write off, compared to when you expect to be paid and are not.’ We won the case and she was awarded the highest damages for loss of eyesight at the time. As for the doctor, he learned how you can help by acting as an expert and got turned on to doing expert testimony. It is still important for me to act for clients in need of representation, whatever the issue” (Mortimer Freiheit).

The EQ results also validate Achievement as a key motivator showing high scores in social responsibility and problem solving (in interpersonal relationships). Again, C.V.s provide clear records of an impressive list of achievements by this group.

Recognition
“The litigators that I deal with are highly ethical. I’ve had tough fights with people like David Scott and Pierre Bourque and we retain strong mutual respect” (Raynold Langlois). “We measure ourselves against each other and we feed off each other. Peer recognition is a motivator” (George Macintosh).

Professional recognition as a motivator is in part connected to self-actualization. Our 25 corporate litigators simply thrive in an intellectually challenging environment where the issues are real and important. For these people it is the quality of people around them that makes this environment so vibrant. Alan Lenczner recalls as a young lawyer working with pre-eminent counsel such as John Robinette, Q.C., Douglas Laidlaw, Q.C., and George Finlayson, Q.C. “It was like joining the Montreal Canadiens with Boom Boom Geoffrion, and being allowed to play as the third man,” he says. This motivator is also important in the “mentorship” aspect that these litigators still see as the backbone of professional development.

Competition
“Winning the right cases is most important” (Thomas Heintzman). “Law, with its strategic and tactical elements, is intellectual warfare. I love the intellectual contest, the excitement, the risk and, especially, the camaraderie with other lawyers. Sometimes I am invited to the casino in Windsor. I decline, saying, “I don’t need a casino, I am running Ontario’s largest crap game in my office” (Harvey Strosberg).

“I love being in court” was a comment heard in every interview. These individuals love to win, but in a fair, ethical way. They are highly competitive and the motivation for winning appears to circle back to their scorecard for other motivators such as mastery, getting better/more skilled and achievement—making a difference. They most appreciate the tough wins and the wins that are related to causes they believe in. Their résumés contain evidence of competitive pursuits from an early age.

Mentors
Every profession has its leaders. One of the most notable aspects of the interviews conducted was the amount of time our litigators spent talking about mentors. John Robinette’s name was raised in practically every interview. Robinette clearly influenced an entire generation.

Other names surfaced as well. “Doug Laidlaw was my mentor; he was the best lawyer there was—a true trial lawyer who went from one trial to the next. He inspired a generation of us. He was a devastating cross-examiner but was capable of great subtlety and nuance too, and so was also a wonderful advocate at appeals” (Ronald Slaght).

What is most significant about the stories recalled regarding mentors is the learning and insight passed on. David Scott learned about cross-examination from Gordon Henderson. David Tavender still uses and in fact teaches the “case book” preparation he learned from W.A. McGillivray (who later became the chief justice of Alberta). Alan Lenczner learned about consummate preparation and elegant simplicity from John Robinette. For Clifford Lax, Eddie Goodman imported the most significant attitude about the practice of law generally: “You’ll do very well by doing good.”

Mentors and role models are highly valued by this group. Most said that the insights and lessons they learned from such people have been more valuable than any other form of professional development. While they chose not to copy any one style, they integrated the best of what they saw into their own approach. This is interesting because there is a general consensus in the research respecting leadership that a distinguishing characteristic of superior leaders is an ability to extract three to five times more learning out of the same experiences that others share. William Berardino provides a classic articulation of this principle. “I articled with Russell & DuMoulin [now Fasken Martineau DuMoulin]… I was lucky enough to work with three outstanding lawyers: Douglas MacKay Brown, Allan McEachern and Michael Goldie. I watched them. They set an example. I began to incorporate pieces of their style into my own.”


George K. Macintosh, Q.C. Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy
Irwin G. Nathanson, Q.C. Nathanson, Schachter & Thompson
Richard R. Sugden, Q.C. Sugden, McFee & Roos

An Art Form
“It’s preparation, preparation, preparation—the best lawyers are the best prepared and the hardest working” (Richard Sugden). “Preparation and getting to the central issue is most important” (Clifton O’Brien). “You win your cases in the office, through thorough preparation. You lose them in the courtroom when you haven’t thought things through” (James Hodgson). “You ask yourself, how can these facts be marshalled to portray your client as the most reasonable party in the courtroom?” (George Macintosh). As well, the occasional dramatic flair can have its advantages. As Neil Finkelstein points out, “Your strategy is critically important, but you also have to love putting on a production.” Interestingly, about a third of the litigators interviewed acknowledged that they had seriously considered acting careers in their younger years.

Roderick McLennan captures the essence of litigation as an art. “If I am doing a great job, you won’t see me doing much. I won’t look great. My witnesses will either radiate integrity and sincerity or, if on the other side, misguided or fraudulent.”

Intuitive Thinkers
The crux of the matter is how these people think. Top litigators have the ability to sift through huge quantities of information, select what is critical, and arrange information to best fit their theory of the case. “It’s getting to the essence of your case and picking your battleground” (Irwin Nathanson). “It’s a major error to analyze from your own perspective. You must always transpose yourself into the perspective of others, most particularly the judge or judges who hear the case” (Bill Berardino). “Shaping your evidence is an art form” (Benjamin Zarnett).

The litigators interviewed call these skills “judgment.” Many, but not all, have studied philosophy. Others appear to have photographic memories.

The one element that is most common to all is that they are highly creative, abstract thinkers. The great psychologist Carl Jung characterized this style of thinking as intuition; perception by way of the unconscious. According to Jung and his follower Isabel Briggs Myers (of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator), intuitions can surface to the conscious mind through hunches, the perception of a pattern in seemingly unrelated events or as a creative discovery. Such thinkers are often described as having a kind of sixth sense. Key skills and/or attributes of these thinkers include high-level imagination, theoretical, abstract, future-oriented and creativity.

In early years, before socialization has taken hold, intuitive thinkers are often described by family and friends as being in another world (space cadets). They can seem to miss seeing or hearing things in the actual physical world around them.

More than 90 per cent of the litigators who completed the 16 PF show this as a significant thinking style. More than 80 per cent of the general population think in concrete, practical and immediate terms. The thinking style of this group is quite different from that of the general population and is probably the principal explanation for their success.

Frank R. Foran, Q.C.Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
David Ross Haigh, Q.C. Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP
E. David D. Tavender, Q.C. Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP


Flexibility and Change
This was the one skill set (measured on the EQ) and personality factor (measured by 16 PF) with the greatest variability. Some scored very low, some high and others average. Initially, this puzzled us as responses indicated flexibility and adaptability as critical given the number of uncontrollable variables in litigation. What we discerned is that all of these individuals have a thinking style that is highly flexible—characteristic of abstract reasoning. However, their lifestyle preferences and personal responses to change are much more varied. It is apparent that some dislike change, crave order and routine in their lives. Others crave adventure and variety. These two aspects of flexibility are not mutually exclusive but simply reflective of the complexities inherent in human nature.

Raw Intelligence
This is a politically sensitive topic. No one wanted to be quoted on it. However, numerous off-the-record comments convey a clear belief that if you don’t have strong raw intelligence in such critical areas as problem solving, deductive reasoning and communication, including the ability to “read” others, you cannot succeed in litigation. It is almost like the “top gun” phenomenon. Everyone thinks that there is always a faster, better “top gun” out there and that staying in this high-stakes game requires a very fast, well-tuned mind. There is good reason in law for grades to be used as an important criteria for selection, as long as they are not the only criteria. Our research to date, for example, clearly correlates high EQ with top performers.

Defining and Shaping Experiences
“I learned more from the cases I lost than those I won. I acted for a young man who dove off a dock in Windsor and became a quadriplegic. He was an illegal immigrant. On his behalf, I sued the City of Windsor and many others. During the trial, he rejected a settlement of approximately seven figures. He lost and deportation proceedings began. Then his appeal was dismissed. Shortly thereafter, he died. I believe the dismissal of his action, his imminent deportation and his subsistence on welfare were causes contributing to his death. I learned in this most painful way that counsel must strive to understand his or her clients and must be attuned to the emotions of the community in which the action is tried. Most significantly, counsel must always carefully alert and emphasize to the client the down side of the case” (Harvey Strosberg).

Interestingly, many of the examples of “defining” experiences are not about the biggest or best case these individuals had litigated. Their stories are more about the cases or situations in which they learned something significant that would make them more effective in future.

Shadow Tendencies
Even successful courtroom warriors are not perfect. As one might expect, these individuals are not exactly shrinking violet personalities. Their personality profiles and EQ scores point the way to their most likely human failings/weaknesses. To identify areas of probable weakness we followed two simple psychological principles. The first is that any strength carried too far becomes a weakness. For example, confidence can turn to arrogance. The second is the flip side of “We practise what we prefer and become proficient at what we practise.” In other words, what one neglects/ignores can easily become like weeds in the garden. This group is highly selective about what they prefer and practise. Here are four examples of high potential areas of weakness:

1. Team players—Not easily and not naturally. If they do it well, it is because they value it and have acquired skill. The absolute highest EQ score for this group is Independence or self-directedness. Highly independent people are simply “wired” to take control. Many of these people must wage an ongoing inner war about feeling they should be more collaborative. Introverted independents will especially struggle with this and may often feel they can do things faster and better on their own because they “personally” work better this way.

2. Taking unfair advantage in personal arguments—They are extremely proficient at such skills as cross-examination and “boxing” in witnesses. Because they are smart they try to guard against using these skills outside the courtroom, and perhaps even believe they do. However their “fight” skills are not just well-honed, they are deeply imbedded. When they are stressed or angry it is like asking the cat not to go after the canary. They have the potential to overwhelm and devastate others.

3. Strong work ethic—Leads to workaholism and all of its manifestations, including getting caught up in their own “little world,” being oblivious of and insensitive to those around them (and their needs), taking those closest to them for granted, etc. Their spouses, children and assistants in particular will bear the brunt of this and likely deserve medals for putting up with them at times. Still, thankfully, they attract those who admire these same qualities that can drive them crazy.

4. High maintenance—Without strong support systems, at home and work, they have the potential to crash. Their exceptional personal levels of expectation can lead to unrealistic expectations of others. They can be unreasonably demanding and critical.

Sheila Block and family Torys LLP
Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C. Sutts Strosberg LLP

Exceptions: Block and Strosberg
Lest law firms feel inclined to use the composite profile at the beginning of this article as a recruitment screen, it should be pointed out that even within this profile there were differences. We found four borderline extroverts, two true extroverts and two individuals whose thinking style was slightly more concrete. Every group of people also has one or two who stand apart from the crowd. In this group it was Sheila Block and Harvey Strosberg.

“Women are unfairly disadvantaged in litigation because the time requirements are so demanding and women still assume an enormous role as child care-givers. Sheila Block has managed to do it, however. I remember that she would go into her office very early in the morning, but insist on going home every evening to be at dinner with her kids and for homework, etc. Many others manage as well, but it must be extremely difficult” (Clifford Lax).

“I don’t know how she did it,” was the comment respecting Sheila Block made again and again throughout interviews for this article. She looks like she might be the neighbourhood soccer mom. She is petite, pretty and polished. Yet she holds a reputation as an outstanding and tough trial lawyer. “First, she comes extremely well prepared,” says Cliff Lax. “She has this incredible ability through a combination of absolute recall and note taking to recite back evidence from any point in time and have it absolutely accurate. She is a highly skilled cross-examiner and while she is flexible in going into a case, once she forms her assessment, she will be unrelenting in asserting her position,” adds Lax. Cliff Lax’s description of Sheila Block was strikingly similar to descriptions expressed of all the individuals in this group.

What is different, of course, is that Sheila Block is a woman, and a mother of three. It was natural for us to be curious to see if she achieves the same results but through a different approach. We were particularly interested to see if her EQ or personality profile were different in any way. For the most part, they were not and, in fact, she shares the same dominant characteristics as others, i.e., highly creative and independent, somewhat introverted, sensitive and emotionally stable.

Dr. Steven Stein Psychologist, Mutli-Health Systems

However, she shows an interesting “spike” on her openness to change (nine on a scale of 10 on the 16 PF). It shows up in an even more pronounced fashion in the behaviours measured by the EQi. Her EQ score with respect to change management places her in the 98th percentile of the general population.

It’s always fascinating how one variable in an individual’s makeup can account for such great differences. In the case of Sheila Block, her appetite for change and ability to manage time and change in order to be flexible around the competing demands of a major case versus parental responsibilities has probably been central to her reconciliation of the work/home challenge that many women face. She can literally dance on the head of a pin.

Sheila Block is also the first to point out that she did not do it alone, that her husband at the time when the children were young was a major source of support and that her colleagues and firm were also understanding and supportive. A final difference for Sheila Block is her list of mentors/role models who women can look to which includes Beverley McLachlin, Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, Rosie Abella, Louise Arbour, Eleanore Cronk, Gloria Epstein and others.

It takes less than five minutes with Harvey Strosberg to be convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that he is just a different kind of litigator. No one else talks about syndicating or underwriting class actions that regular people cannot afford to pay for. No one else compares playing the odds in litigation to a crap game. No one else sings in Jamaican reggae style “Matilda she take me money and run.” Even his office is different. It looks more like a political campaign office. He infuses excitement, there is a buzz about him that I have seen before, but in a different setting—high-tech entrepreneurs.

Harvey Strosberg’s profile is somewhat misleading. He is marginally an extrovert, and one of the best closet introverts we’ve seen in a while. Much like his colleagues, he has high levels of Emotional Intelligence, is creative and highly independent. The “spike” that does pop up in the personality profile testing and differentiates him is that he has exceptional levels of emotional self-awareness, in the 96th percentile of the average population and considerably higher for the legal population.

In other words, Strosberg’s “internal thermometer” of what he can and cannot get away with, or how far he can push the boundaries of creativity and risk, is simply much finer tuned than that of most people. He intuitively knows how far he can push the edge of the envelope. This factor alone likely explains much about his style. His motivations also appear to be different from the rest of the group. Our interview findings show that he has a greater appetite for risk and is more entrepreneurially motivated.

Conclusion
What is perhaps of greatest benefit resulting from this examination is the identification of early patterns of strength that may well signal the probability of better than average success for up-and-coming litigators. What strengths should firms be seeking and developing in young lawyers? Our findings would indicate at least six possible skills or attributes:
1. High levels of independence—initiative (self-starters);
2. Future looking and opportunity-minded (optimists);
3. A good sense of reality—what is and is not possible;
4. Appear to be calm and strong—have high levels of endurance and take steps to take care of themselves;
5. Creative thinkers. Some signs of this include big-picture thinking, thinking in terms of patterns/connections, future orientation, and the use of analogy in speech; and
6. Sensitive and caring about others (sensitivity).
A defining characteristic of a top litigator is the cumulative intellectual ability (EQ plus IQ) to absorb and discard massive amounts of information to develop a clear and elegant theory of a case. As Clifton O’Brien puts it, “If you see 20 issues in a case, you’re seeing 18 too many.” As Roderick McLennan says, “If I am doing a great job, you won’t see me doing much.”

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Irene Taylor is a leadership consultant with more than 25 years of experience in coaching and advising senior and top talent leaders, in Canada and internationally.

Editor’s Note: We wish to thank the corporate litigators profiled in this article for their patience, trust and good nature in participating in what, at least at the outset, must have appeared as a somewhat intrusive exercise. Particular thanks are extended to Multi-Health Systems and Dr. Steven Stein for administering and scoring the EQi assessments. An acknowledged North American authority in this field, Dr. Stein’s contribution was invaluable in preparation of this group profile. We also wish to thank Dr. James Slaughter and the Institute for Personality and Ability Testing for supplying the 16PF, which constituted an excellent assessment tool for understanding the personalities of this group.