In my years in the legal industry, and in legal recruiting in particular, one problem has become steadily more evident: the prevailing approach is spammy and recruiter centric.
Here is the typical scenario. A recruiter contacts an attorney, and if there is any engagement, the conversation runs something like this:
“I represent an esteemed AmLaw 200 law firm and would like to discuss your practice and career progression. I cannot disclose the firm’s name, but are you open to exploring new opportunities?”
That is the fishing expedition, and it is a daily practice in much of this industry. The recruiter finds a promising candidate and presents them to several firms at once, which maximizes the chance of a placement fee. The approach is recruiter centric by design, and that is not the only problem with it.
Once the candidate has been presented to several firms, they often begin interviewing with several. The law firm, nominally the client, has no idea that its chosen candidate is in three other processes. Two problems follow:
- Each firm invests valuable time and resources in interviewing the candidate, only to discover during the offer stage that the candidate has accepted an offer elsewhere.
- Presenting one candidate to several firms invites a bidding war between them. That serves the recruiter, and it does not serve any of the firms.
The practice also lacks transparency. Consider the firm that posts a role on its own site, or engages several recruiters to fill it. Because the incentive is the placement fee, the difficult searches tend to go to the bottom of the pile, and the firm never learns that its urgent need is sitting untouched.
Most law firms are not in the AmLaw 100 or 200, which puts them well down the priority list. Those are precisely the firms that need a dedicated partner working their specific needs rather than floating candidates who may or may not fit the objective.
Given the present state of legal recruiting, law firms must ask themselves three crucial questions when considering recruiting partners:
- Can we trust that our lateral hiring needs will be genuinely addressed?
- Do we retain control over the candidates we recruit?
- Is our recruiting partner transparent in their operations?
Too often the answer to all three is no.
The industry needs to rethink what it offers clients, starting with whether it treats them as clients at all. Are your recruiters supplying resumes and profiles of possibly interested lawyers, or working as an extension of your team? Do they help you meet the firm’s growth objectives, or only fill a seat?
If you are tired of the hope and pray approach, it may be time for something more deliberate: a single partner you trust with your lateral hiring, one that leaves the selection in your hands, and one that is transparent about its activity, the market feedback and the competitive intelligence that comes with it.
Perhaps it’s time you work with OnBoard Legal.