So basically we don't use it because people at our career planning workshops said not, so I suppose if they said to do it we all would. I'm not denying that it seems to be the way things are done, it's just interesting. To have the LSAT be as important as it is in law school admissions, but then be told that absent any other data (i.e. law school grades) a 145 is the same as a 180 means either the test lacks any validity and should be weighted far less in admissions or this is simply a social convention (a term which apparently offends some people here, but which seems to be the best description of what's going on). Again, sorry that questioning orthodoxy rankles some posters.
"180? why isn't this kid at yale or stanford or in at penn with a levy? maybe this lsat score is the best thing about him? maybe he has lousy grades because he's got no work ethic, and just got into a good law school because he got lucky on his test date?"
A high LSAT tells employers that you're bright/read fast. When you have nothing else to put on your resume to make yourself stand out, it makes sense to put it on there. I made a 179, and I'll be putting it on my resume. I don't go to Yale, but on the only standard metric by which applicants are judged, I'm better than most Yale students. It may be that some people will be disgusted, like the poster above. But some people might be impressed, and many will consider it to be a relevant and meaningful data point. Cheers!