How law firm partners can work more effectively with recruiters

I recently worked with a terrific partner who was interested in bettering her current situation by moving to another law firm which fit her specific criteria.  What made her a joy to work with was the way she engaged in the process.   It helped ensure a better outcome for all concerned: the firms, candidate and me. Of course, it didn't hurt that she was a strong candidate because of the raw strength of her academic credentials, practice experience and book.   

If you get a call from me it’s because you I have evidence of academic credentials, practice experience, appropriate book and billing size for an opportunity which I believe is suitable, realistic and genuinely could be of interest to you.  When you get a call from someone else about a firm which might be attractive but is also wildly unrealistic, given obvious variables, in some cases it’s because a recruiter hasn’t taken the time to understand the economics and character of your firm, of you, or because your web entry is misleading.  In other cases, it’s “bait and switch,” an attempt to get your ear at any cost.

I identified the candidate through our databases and reached out to her by phone.  The stages and elements of this effective relationship were as follows:

1.Wish List.  The candidate was not interested in the opportunity about which I called her.  However, she shared with me her wish list of the characteristics a firm would have to have if it were to better her current circumstances .  It took some work and research but I did find several opportunities which met her criteria. Elements on someone's list might be particular law firm characteristics or management model (ex, transparent compensation and management vs. corporately run, closed compensation structure; hub and spokes relationship of branch offices to a Mother Ship home office vs. a model of distributed power, and resources across peer offices), geographic footprint, practice mix, compensation, absence of mandatory retirement, lack of client conflicts, potential for a leadership role, or the reputation of the firm with a particular type of client.  

 2.  Basic Channels of  Communication were Quickly Established.  In this day and age, everyone has their preferences—text, home phone, cellular phone, office email, home email.  I am not clairvoyant.

3.  Meeting Face to Face.  There are, unfortunately, times when it doesn’t  happen—if the candidate’s schedule doesn't permit or if  she is not based  in New York.  When a meeting can happen, it helps to establish mutual trust and also gives me the opportunity to get  a feel for the intangibles which contribute to a successful “fit.”   At the partner level, it is safe to assume that a candidate presents herself well in person.   However there are times, not present in this particular case, where there might be an element to the candidate’s presentation which, if discussed up front with the firm, will prepare and is less likely to distract, an interviewer.  I am thinking things such as visible pregnancy or physical disability.  If we don't meet, you do yourself a favor by volunteering this information.

4.  Frank Discussion of Practice Needs. As a former practicing lawyer, I have a pretty good sense of what kinds of ancillary practices are necessary to support a particular practice area.  I really know what a derivative is and what a patent prosecution practice requires.  Still, it’s always good to have this confirmed.   It is also helpful to indicate whether a candidate’s clients require the prospective law firm to be on an “approved” list of legal services providers.  

5.  Realistic, Consistent Estimation of Client Number and Book Size, Accurate Chronology of Work Experience.  Candidates don’t do themselves any favors by inflating their books to recruiters or omitting brief stints with past legal employers from their resumes.  Overly optimistic estimates or omissions will be discovered, sooner or later, and lead to the firm and recruiter to more generally question the candidate’s veracity.  This is especially important as confidentiality concerns means that there is a limited amount of due diligence possible at the early stages in the process—initial conversations are usually initiated on the strength of a resume and website entry

6. Ongoing, Straightforward, Honest Communication.  When it comes to communicating with me,  I don’t enjoy working with candidates that I have to chase in multiple means of communication and who don’t tell me that they are pursuing opportunities through multiple recruiters. Life and work can wreck havoc with an interview schedule . That's to be expected.  Pay me the courtesy of letting me know that you will be unavailable for some period of time-- instead of just falling off the map.   I would prefer and like the opportunity to show why I should be a candidate's only recruiter. But I can deal with competition and I don't expect to know detailed information about a firm opportunity in which I am uninvolved. However, I hate being ambushed with fast approaching deadlines of opportunities, the general potential for which I had no prior knowledge.  When it comes to the candidate’s communications with a prospective law firm, I can’t reinforce a strategy or emphasis that I don’t know about.   Enough said.

     7.   Everyone Needs to Feel Special.  When the candidate is quickly and promptly responsive, I am able to swiftly and timely relay information to and from the prospective law firms, the principals and representatives of those firms feel respected and their opportunity appreciated.  Everyone is in a better mood.   If conversations with a particular firm don’t result in a deal, neither of me or the candidate need to concern ourselves with future bad will.  However, when the candidate makes herself inexplicably unavailable or drawn out, the momentum gets broken, the firm begins to wonder whether the candidate is serious--and no one wants to waste their time if they are not. 

8.  Employing Me as a Resource.  I look to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. I am hapy to offer my own, generally well informed, opinion on most anything, including how to present something in the most favorable light possible, and to ask the kinds of questions of a firm that a candidate might not feel comfortable asking themselves.  I am also happy to be as much or as little involved in any compensation negotiations as the candidate and/or the firm desire. 

9.  Employing me to Help Accommodate Timing Considerations.  I can often help speed up or delay a stage in the process, if need be, to accommodate personal considerations or competing deadlines.   My being a nudge and a pest will not affect whether the prospective firm will extend an offer.

Law Firm Transactional Lawyers Moving to Firms in Other Markets

For law firm partners looking to move, the size and characteristics of their book of portable client business are primary considerations. They need to consider the differences in billing rates in various markets.  A partner moving from Toledo to New York, let’s say, might find his clients unwilling to pay the higher rates often called for in the NY market.  This is an issue especially in practice areas which are more “low margin,” that is where supply of lawyers in a particular practice area has pushed down the hourly rate, and/or the tendency for established corporations to take certain kinds of work in-house.  I am thinking of areas such as patent prosecution and immigration. 

In-house opportunities are governed by different variables which correlate strongly to the kind of business activity in which the company is itself are engaged, the location of the corporate headquarters and whether there is a centralized or distributed management decision making structure.


Most of what I have to say today relates to transactional lawyers lateraling to a law firm, at the junior and mid-levels, in a different city.  It’s true that, for many purposes, you can be physically located almost anywhere with a computer and skype access. For more junior folk, you need to consider relative market characteristics from the stand point of subject matter and local business activity. The kind of legal activity in a market follows from the business activity in that market. There is not, for example, much maritime legal activity in a landlocked city. 

Going back to when a attorney chooses his or her law school, you will find it easier to find work in a market where there are alumni from your law school.  Employers respond more favorably to law schools where they know alumni.   If you don't go to a nationally known, top 20 law school, go to the best law school that you can get into in the region where you want to work.

In choosing your practice area in anticipation of a later move, the associate should consider what kind of business activity is most common in the region where she wishes to relocate.  An associate who is a Eurobond lawyer may need to retool themselves to market himself to firms in, let’s say, Omaha, where there is not much business or legal activity in that practice area.  However, someone who gets experience in New York in, let’s say transactional IP, will find it relatively easy to transition to the Silicon Valley market.

In New York and certain other major markets, like Chicago, LA, DC, large firm transactional lawyers are typically encouraged to become highly specialized.  The reasons for these are twofold. On the one hand, clients are often unwilling to pay for an associate’s learning curve in new kinds of matters. However also in these major markets there exists a volume of work in these respective specialties and subspecialties which makes specialization possible.

In smaller and secondary markets, like New Orleans or Denver, large firm transactional lawyers tend to be generalists because lawyers there do not typically have the same shear volume of specialized work.  

Moving from a highly specialized practice to one more generalized and visa versa is most easily done when you are more junior—let’s say in the first three years of post law school practice.

The reason for this is a very practical one.  A NYC transactional lawyer who moves to Minneapolis will find himself with skills and experience which are different to that of his Minneapolis peer.  He will be stronger in some areas and weaker in others.  The more senior a lateral is, the more difficult it is for this prototypical Minneapolis law firm to plug him into their hierarchy.

On the other hand, the more senior generalist large firm lawyer from, let’s say New Orleans, will have a more difficult time finding  a position with a peer firm New York because those firms have a much more segmented corporate practice.  This lateral candidate will lacks, for his class level, the sheer volume of experience in any one  practice specialty.  Once again, the large firm will have trouble slotting him or her into their hierarchy.

The generalist attorney will probably find herself more in demand at smaller, middle market law firms since these firms, like the firms in their former jurisdiction, will lack the kind of volume in a any practice specialty to justify segmenting of their corporate practice.


It goes without saying that a change in geography may very well call for the candidate to become admitted, by exam or on motion, in her new state.