firstcounsel.com
firstcounsel.com/au
Page Content
You may think that briefing the recruiters will do the job for you. It may do, but all it will do is draw down people who are already on recruiters' databases. These people are often dissatisfied, which is not the best place to start from a recruitment point of view. It may be difficult to gauge their level of desperation, so caveat emptor.
If you simply sit and wait for the right candidate to come along, you may have a long wait. This may not be a problem (in fact it may suit your purposes very well). If your hire is simply opportunistice - the 'nice to have' - then you can afford to wait. However, if your need is more pressing you really need to do something about it.
What you ideally want to do is draw new people into the candidate pool, aimed at joining you, people who may be slightly discomfited where they are but not enough to put themselves on the market.
In being proactive, you have two options, Search and Selection (sometimes called advertised selection).
Search can be very effective, but can be very expensive, as part of the fee (often a third of the eventual fee) is payable upfront and non-refundable. It is also difficult to run in tandem with a more general recruitment campaign. You need to consider what happens if a recruiter comes up with someone you have identified in your search. You certainly do not want to be paying two recruiters to get you the same person!
Most firms take the attitude that this all gets too complicated and prefer to run the search secretly to begin with, before going to market (ie briefing contingent recruiters) if the search does not work.
While search can be effective, it is worth noting that there are downsides to it. First, some firms (the search agent's other clients) will be 'off-limits' so you will not be able to get candidates from those firms. Most professional search firms will only have one client in each area of the market to minimise this situation. Some may brief effectively a sub-contractor to go after 'off-limits' candidates, although woe betide if their clients find out...(worth thinking about yourself if you are concerned that your agents may act for some of your rivals!)
Secondly, the search agents may not know their market very well. People they turn up on research lists may be completely off-beam (or in one unfortunate case - apparently true - dead for some months), so make sure they know your market thoroughly.
Also, the advantage from a candidate's point of view in using a general, contingent agent may be the problem with search. Choice.
Think about buying a car. If you were thinking about investing in a new luxury car, something to last you for ten years, say, how would you purchase it? Would you sit in your house and wait for someone to come to your door and sell it to you?
Yes, you would hear about all its wonderful features, how luxurious, how well-built, how fast it was. If the salesman was really good, you might even be persuaded to go down to the garage to test-drive it. You might even sign on the dotted line in the showroom.
But wouldn't you be wondering how well its competitors drove?
A candidate is in exactly the same position. Very often, contingent recruiters find that new candidates are added to their 'pool' having been searched and feel they need to consider their options, in which case you are suddenly faced with a lot of competition for your candidate. The problem then is that your search agent is outflanked, perhaps by more than one contingent agent. They will be doing everything in their power to persuade the candidate to choose you and the less-polished ones can often over-egg the pudding. Whereas a subtle contingent recruiter can guide a candidate in one direction or another while still considering all the options, a search agent only has one weapon in the armoury.
Now think about selling that car. Rather than door-to-door, what are your other options?
Lawyers do have a marked aversion to advertising. This is mainly to do with the fact that advertising is not guaranteed to succeed (and hence 'wasted' money).
However, it is equally to do with psychology. No-one likes to admit that they might be lured by advertising. In the mind of a lawyer, whose entire professional existence is based on certainty of knowledge and either having all the answers or knowing where to get them, advertising is quite a grubby thing indeed.
The response of many lawyers in interview (see WEBLINK) is diffidence. To those in other professions, this may seem completely mad. Surely, if you are trying to get a job, then you would do your best to appear enthusiastic and willing, rather than uninterested and even offhand.
The lawyer in interview is not about to be persuaded at first blush, particularly not by grand offices, impressive meeting rooms or the immediate sales message of a firm. He or she will remain studiedly neutral, cordial but usually not that warm, during a first interview while he or she decides - at their own pace - how things stack up. In due consideration of the facts presented, he or she will then decide to deign to take things forward or politely decline.
So it is with advertising. Responding to a named advertisement - particularly if that advertisement is heavily-branded or contains a strong sales message - would break that pact of neutral, careful consideration the lawyer has with him or herself, especially if they are a partner. For some partners, SEARCH has the same undertones, which is why successful search agents have a more subtle, structured approach, often sending an assistant to request permission to call, rather like a medieval herald sent ahead of his feudal lord to beg indulgence of the baron he wishes to parley with, who is duly flattered by this respectful approach.
That is why contingent recruiters will tell you that in partner recruitment particularly, a named advertisement is a waste of time and money, unless all you are wanting to do is blow a raspberry at your competitors. Unnamed, anonymous advertising is the lure that has most chance of attracting the partner. The anonymity gives them a buffer, allowing them to talk to the recruiter without making any philosophical commitment to consider being attracted by one particular firm - a rubicon they would have to cross to respond to a named advertisement.
In fact, the profession in England & Wales is way ahead of the pack. In the US, tombstone advertising is more common and recruitment advertising very rare (in New York, the hub of the US legal profession, partner recruitment is dominated by highly-paid, highly-discreet search agents who have more in common with marriage brokers than contingent recruiters), while in many other countries, it is still forbidden by local Bar regulations for law firms to advertise at all, not even to their clients.
Advertising is not guaranteed, but is really the only proactive tool available in contingent recruitment. Recruitment gimmicks - CD-ROMs selling the firm, recruitment 'seminars' - have a poor track record, are entirely useless at senior levels, and indeed can be completely counterproductive.
If your strategy is to grow a particular department, you must do everything possible to attain that goal. If you have decided to grow quickly, this will probably involve recruiting a partner with some following, to provide work for you to grow your assistant base.
If you have searched and found no-one, or decided not to search anyway and used contingent recruiters - perhaps with an advertising campaign - and neither have produced anyone, at least you have tried everything you can. Now it's time to reconsider your strategy.
You may decide to put immediate growth on hold and remain opportunistic about it. There's no point having a two-person increase in your headcount in the budget if there aren't two people to be recruited. Striving after that will just demoralise everyone in the team.
Now, your immediate priority should be to consolidate and make sure you retain what you have. This may mean looking at assistant salaries, perhaps recruiting more assistants or considering whether you should be looking at supporting more trainees so that in three or four years you have partners of the future to identify. At this point, considerations such as retaining critical mass or particular 'star' assistants will seem more important.
The recruitment process
After you have your ducks in a row as regards finding a sponsor for the recruitment and explaining the strategy internally, you are ready to go to market.You may think that briefing the recruiters will do the job for you. It may do, but all it will do is draw down people who are already on recruiters' databases. These people are often dissatisfied, which is not the best place to start from a recruitment point of view. It may be difficult to gauge their level of desperation, so caveat emptor.
If you simply sit and wait for the right candidate to come along, you may have a long wait. This may not be a problem (in fact it may suit your purposes very well). If your hire is simply opportunistice - the 'nice to have' - then you can afford to wait. However, if your need is more pressing you really need to do something about it.
What you ideally want to do is draw new people into the candidate pool, aimed at joining you, people who may be slightly discomfited where they are but not enough to put themselves on the market.
In being proactive, you have two options, Search and Selection (sometimes called advertised selection).
Search
Search - or headhunting - involves the targeting of a candidate or candidates from a list prepared by search agents, headhunters. They will act exclusively on your behalf, coming in for a briefing or several briefings, prepare a target list of people for you to consider, agree with you a shortlist of people to talk to directly and then go off and do it.Search can be very effective, but can be very expensive, as part of the fee (often a third of the eventual fee) is payable upfront and non-refundable. It is also difficult to run in tandem with a more general recruitment campaign. You need to consider what happens if a recruiter comes up with someone you have identified in your search. You certainly do not want to be paying two recruiters to get you the same person!
Most firms take the attitude that this all gets too complicated and prefer to run the search secretly to begin with, before going to market (ie briefing contingent recruiters) if the search does not work.
While search can be effective, it is worth noting that there are downsides to it. First, some firms (the search agent's other clients) will be 'off-limits' so you will not be able to get candidates from those firms. Most professional search firms will only have one client in each area of the market to minimise this situation. Some may brief effectively a sub-contractor to go after 'off-limits' candidates, although woe betide if their clients find out...(worth thinking about yourself if you are concerned that your agents may act for some of your rivals!)
Secondly, the search agents may not know their market very well. People they turn up on research lists may be completely off-beam (or in one unfortunate case - apparently true - dead for some months), so make sure they know your market thoroughly.
Also, the advantage from a candidate's point of view in using a general, contingent agent may be the problem with search. Choice.
Think about buying a car. If you were thinking about investing in a new luxury car, something to last you for ten years, say, how would you purchase it? Would you sit in your house and wait for someone to come to your door and sell it to you?
Yes, you would hear about all its wonderful features, how luxurious, how well-built, how fast it was. If the salesman was really good, you might even be persuaded to go down to the garage to test-drive it. You might even sign on the dotted line in the showroom.
But wouldn't you be wondering how well its competitors drove?
A candidate is in exactly the same position. Very often, contingent recruiters find that new candidates are added to their 'pool' having been searched and feel they need to consider their options, in which case you are suddenly faced with a lot of competition for your candidate. The problem then is that your search agent is outflanked, perhaps by more than one contingent agent. They will be doing everything in their power to persuade the candidate to choose you and the less-polished ones can often over-egg the pudding. Whereas a subtle contingent recruiter can guide a candidate in one direction or another while still considering all the options, a search agent only has one weapon in the armoury.
Now think about selling that car. Rather than door-to-door, what are your other options?
Contingent recruitment - advertised selection
Unfortunately, there is very little new under the sun. Recruitment is not rocket-science and there are few options available to those wishing to recruit. Having briefed every recruiter in the market (or at least a good group of selected recruiters) as to your need, perhaps having searched or at least considered it, what options remain?Lawyers do have a marked aversion to advertising. This is mainly to do with the fact that advertising is not guaranteed to succeed (and hence 'wasted' money).
However, it is equally to do with psychology. No-one likes to admit that they might be lured by advertising. In the mind of a lawyer, whose entire professional existence is based on certainty of knowledge and either having all the answers or knowing where to get them, advertising is quite a grubby thing indeed.
The response of many lawyers in interview (see WEBLINK) is diffidence. To those in other professions, this may seem completely mad. Surely, if you are trying to get a job, then you would do your best to appear enthusiastic and willing, rather than uninterested and even offhand.
The lawyer in interview is not about to be persuaded at first blush, particularly not by grand offices, impressive meeting rooms or the immediate sales message of a firm. He or she will remain studiedly neutral, cordial but usually not that warm, during a first interview while he or she decides - at their own pace - how things stack up. In due consideration of the facts presented, he or she will then decide to deign to take things forward or politely decline.
So it is with advertising. Responding to a named advertisement - particularly if that advertisement is heavily-branded or contains a strong sales message - would break that pact of neutral, careful consideration the lawyer has with him or herself, especially if they are a partner. For some partners, SEARCH has the same undertones, which is why successful search agents have a more subtle, structured approach, often sending an assistant to request permission to call, rather like a medieval herald sent ahead of his feudal lord to beg indulgence of the baron he wishes to parley with, who is duly flattered by this respectful approach.
That is why contingent recruiters will tell you that in partner recruitment particularly, a named advertisement is a waste of time and money, unless all you are wanting to do is blow a raspberry at your competitors. Unnamed, anonymous advertising is the lure that has most chance of attracting the partner. The anonymity gives them a buffer, allowing them to talk to the recruiter without making any philosophical commitment to consider being attracted by one particular firm - a rubicon they would have to cross to respond to a named advertisement.
In fact, the profession in England & Wales is way ahead of the pack. In the US, tombstone advertising is more common and recruitment advertising very rare (in New York, the hub of the US legal profession, partner recruitment is dominated by highly-paid, highly-discreet search agents who have more in common with marriage brokers than contingent recruiters), while in many other countries, it is still forbidden by local Bar regulations for law firms to advertise at all, not even to their clients.
Advertising is not guaranteed, but is really the only proactive tool available in contingent recruitment. Recruitment gimmicks - CD-ROMs selling the firm, recruitment 'seminars' - have a poor track record, are entirely useless at senior levels, and indeed can be completely counterproductive.
Advertising and searching - collateral benefits
The result of any recruitment activity should be to feed into the department's - and firm's - strategic imperatives and tactical operations. Only then can its full value be gained.If your strategy is to grow a particular department, you must do everything possible to attain that goal. If you have decided to grow quickly, this will probably involve recruiting a partner with some following, to provide work for you to grow your assistant base.
If you have searched and found no-one, or decided not to search anyway and used contingent recruiters - perhaps with an advertising campaign - and neither have produced anyone, at least you have tried everything you can. Now it's time to reconsider your strategy.
You may decide to put immediate growth on hold and remain opportunistic about it. There's no point having a two-person increase in your headcount in the budget if there aren't two people to be recruited. Striving after that will just demoralise everyone in the team.
Now, your immediate priority should be to consolidate and make sure you retain what you have. This may mean looking at assistant salaries, perhaps recruiting more assistants or considering whether you should be looking at supporting more trainees so that in three or four years you have partners of the future to identify. At this point, considerations such as retaining critical mass or particular 'star' assistants will seem more important.