firstcounsel.com
firstcounsel.com/au
Page Content
Once the decision is made to go ahead, however, careful thought should be given to how this is to be accomplished: after all, the in-house lawyer is likely to be a pivotal member of the senior management team, with responsibility for the most sensitive and difficult functions of the corporation.
In addition, a good job description can act as a filter mechanism, causing unsuitable candidates to withdraw from the process before they have wasted their - and your - time.
Keys elements to consider when drafting the job description include the existing team structure, the purpose of the role, the key responsibilities, skills and experience required, any essential skills and any desirable skills, and personality traits that would suit the role and the company.
Another benefit is that recruiters will be able to present the company in a far better light to candidates. It leaves a positive impression, and enables recruiters to get the buy-in of candidates who may otherwise let the opportunity go as they weren't presented with an accurate story by the recruiter. The selection of candidates will therefore be more thorough which will save the client time as they will always be meeting with candidates who are significantly interested in the role, and the organisation.
One exception to the job description rule is in very senior roles where the role will tend to be moulded by the individual themselves. In this case, though, a framework set of responsibilities is vital.
Whoever the sponsor is, they must be accessible and clear about what they are trying to achieve. They must have all the necessary information at their fingertips and be able to act with authority. They will need to clear the appointment at the appropriate level.
This is the stage where HR professionals - if appropriate - come in to the recruitment. Early consultation can avoid horrible and embarrassing situations further down the line. An HR director will be able to take an overview and make sure that the process is managed properly to the benefit of all concerned.
At this stage, if you do have an HR director or manager, it is useful to decide what the interview process is going to entail, who are going to be the interviewers and who is going to handle all the paperwork.
This is not just to avoid administrative mistakes and delays. Sloppy administration of recruitment looks bad from a candidate point of view and sends all the wrong signals. If you are trying to woo someone, the last thing you want to do is appear slow, disorganised or lukewarm.
It is not uncommon to come across lawyers leaving an organisation because they didn't get enough support and the company then having to pay for another hire. Also although the legal team might have the time to support a more junior lawyer it is important to think if the business will appreciate having a more junior lawyer who won't be as quick to help as other members of the team they use. This can lead to the business simply leaning on the existing members of the team, and the junior lawyer failing to add value as quickly as the team hoped.
It is important that you are using senior recruiters with experience of placing heads of legal as it is much easier to lose a suitable candidate and far more difficult to find replacements for the shortlist.
Conversations will be had about the state of the market, salary expectations, future prospects in the company versus their existing company. You need to feel secure your consultant is equipped to be consultative. Candidate expectations need to be carefully managed, and a more diplomatic approach required to stand very credible people down but still keep your name in good order in the market.
If the recruitment exercise is one that lends itself to database search then it would be wise to use two or three recruiters exclusively. The in-house market is fragmented, which means candidates learn who the keys players are and register with them accordingly.
If however the role is one which should be advertised then it is far more effective to use one recruiter exclusively. The lines of communication are clear, and both client and candidates will all know where they stand in the process.
If recruitment of in-house lawyers is likely to be an ongoing need, you may consider creating a PSL or preferred supplier list.
There are a number of advantages with using a PSL, not least that using just a couple of agencies, for instance, will mean you can negotiate better rates as consultants will be secure that they will always have an option to work on any recruitment assignments. In addition, there are fewer organisations to brief, fewer people to deal with and you can expect a better flow of well-briefed, 'on-spec' candidates because your suppliers will be better-briefed.
If you are using a PSL, it is important to understand which consultant in the agency is dealing with your mandates. Make sure you are not speaking to a senior consultant initially with the understanding they are doing the work, and finding out someone more junior and inexperienced is in fact presenting you and your company to candidates!
There are some downsides with a PSL. A PSL can be restrictive if you want to use a consultant who you know will give you the service you are looking for but who hasn't been through the tender procedure. A PSL can also feel restrictive if the role is particularly tricky to fill. In that case if you are unable to advertise, going to the whole market, in an attempt to find that elusive candidate, may prove more fruitful.
Let your recruiter write the copy for adverts and book the advertising. Recruiters will be able to get better rates than you will and writing adverts is what they are paid for (plus it saves you time!)
Responses will come to the recruiters and they will interview candidates and shortlist for your approval, submitting only the candidates which fit the brief. Avoid at all costs having direct contact with candidates, and refer any third party applications to your chosen recruiters (this is often stated in the ads). This allows proper benchmarking of candidates to take place and avoids embarrassing and messy administrative problems.
Basically, search is expensive and the market too large for it to be effective. For most general in-house roles, the candidate 'pool' may encompass both the broader in-house market (both within your sector and outside it) plus the entirety of private practice. Even if a candidate is required to have had previous in-house experience, this could include people in private practice who have had time on secondment as well as private practice lawyers with previous permanent in-house experience. Searching in such a broad pool would be like finding a needle in a haystack.
As the pool of candidates is so diverse, the most effective method is to advertise in the recognised legal publications. All lawyers receive these publications and all scan the recruitment pages to see what is happening. Most lawyers are quite conservative by nature and may not accept a headhunt call in any event. If the call is taken and interest gained the candidate will always want to be sold something more and there is a real chance that they will use the process as a benchmarking exercise to see if they are happy in the current environment, and often do not move when it comes to offer stage.
Advertising reaches a wider target audience and has an important collateral benefit of raising the companies profile in the market. It also has a set timetable where interview dates can be pencilled in advance into diaries, and the business can be managed as to when they can expect the new hire to join.
Responses to advertised assignments can vary enormously. If you have had a large response you may want to see at least six candidates. It is always advisable to see at least three candidates - if you are able - in order to allow for unforeseen changes in candidates circumstances, such as your preferred candidate being counter offered.
Why? An easy interview resulting in an early offer may lull the candidate into a false sense of security - they may feel that if they have secured an offer this easily, it's going to happen in spades if they explore the market further. This is particularly common with candidates from private practice who may not have moved before and who may have a somewhat 'romantic' view of industry.
Making them work during the interview will dispel this romanticism and make them realise that working in-house is a challenging role-change, which they will be seeking but in an alternative environment.
It is always preferable to interview a candidate at least twice, and give them an opportunity to meet the team. Often, asking the candidate to complete a technical question is a good way of exploring their skills and seeing if their approach is the right one for your organisation. Some clients chose to give the exercise in advance, others present it to candidates at an interview without any advance warning. If there is a third interview it can be helpful to ask a member of the business who they will be working with on a regular basis to be involved in order to get a different slant on the candidates fit.
Most candidates will expect an uplift on a move if they are moving from another in-house environment, but do accept that their base salary might be lower if moving from a top tier firm. However more often than not the total package will be greater in-house than their base in practice.
Getting the offer letter to them quickly can also make a great difference. Once candidates accept they like to feel wanted by their new employer, and this can make the difference if your preferred candidate finds themselves in a buy back situation.
Recruiting an in-house lawyer
A client's guide
The advantages of having an in-house lawyer, as opposed to relying entirely on external counsel, are manifold. See Why hire an in-house lawyer? for more information.Once the decision is made to go ahead, however, careful thought should be given to how this is to be accomplished: after all, the in-house lawyer is likely to be a pivotal member of the senior management team, with responsibility for the most sensitive and difficult functions of the corporation.
Role definition
Clients and candidates will gain far more from the interview process if they prepare a job description in advance. Creating a job description which can be given to the candidate in advance gives the candidate an opportunity to think about the role and how they would fit within the organisation. As a result they will ask far more relevant and intelligent questions at interview making the meeting a more productive event.In addition, a good job description can act as a filter mechanism, causing unsuitable candidates to withdraw from the process before they have wasted their - and your - time.
Keys elements to consider when drafting the job description include the existing team structure, the purpose of the role, the key responsibilities, skills and experience required, any essential skills and any desirable skills, and personality traits that would suit the role and the company.
Another benefit is that recruiters will be able to present the company in a far better light to candidates. It leaves a positive impression, and enables recruiters to get the buy-in of candidates who may otherwise let the opportunity go as they weren't presented with an accurate story by the recruiter. The selection of candidates will therefore be more thorough which will save the client time as they will always be meeting with candidates who are significantly interested in the role, and the organisation.
One exception to the job description rule is in very senior roles where the role will tend to be moulded by the individual themselves. In this case, though, a framework set of responsibilities is vital.
Sponsoring the recruitment
From a recruiter's perspective, it is important that there is an identifiable sponsor or leader for the recruitment. This is often, but not always, the department or group head. Where there is a senior HR professional present, having them fronting the recruitment can avoid many of the usual pitfalls, although our advice would be that the head of legal, if there is one, should ideally take that mantle.Whoever the sponsor is, they must be accessible and clear about what they are trying to achieve. They must have all the necessary information at their fingertips and be able to act with authority. They will need to clear the appointment at the appropriate level.
This is the stage where HR professionals - if appropriate - come in to the recruitment. Early consultation can avoid horrible and embarrassing situations further down the line. An HR director will be able to take an overview and make sure that the process is managed properly to the benefit of all concerned.
At this stage, if you do have an HR director or manager, it is useful to decide what the interview process is going to entail, who are going to be the interviewers and who is going to handle all the paperwork.
This is not just to avoid administrative mistakes and delays. Sloppy administration of recruitment looks bad from a candidate point of view and sends all the wrong signals. If you are trying to woo someone, the last thing you want to do is appear slow, disorganised or lukewarm.
Choosing the level of your in-house lawyer
The level at which to recruit will vary depending on the team structure. One of the more typical discussions when recruiting is whether to bring in a more junior - and hence cheaper - lawyer who you will need to train, or someone more senior who can hit the ground running. Junior lawyers (unless exceptional) do look for some degree of hand-holding. If this is going to be unrealistic then it will save money in the longer term to hire someone more senior.It is not uncommon to come across lawyers leaving an organisation because they didn't get enough support and the company then having to pay for another hire. Also although the legal team might have the time to support a more junior lawyer it is important to think if the business will appreciate having a more junior lawyer who won't be as quick to help as other members of the team they use. This can lead to the business simply leaning on the existing members of the team, and the junior lawyer failing to add value as quickly as the team hoped.
Recruiting a head of legal
Recruiting a head of legal needs to be given a lot of time and thought. These moves involve more career counselling on the part of the recruiters with potential candidates. As the role is more pivotal, getting the right candidate is very important and the process will take more time. The response to any advertising campaign will be very large indeed and you need to feel secure your consultant will make the right selection.It is important that you are using senior recruiters with experience of placing heads of legal as it is much easier to lose a suitable candidate and far more difficult to find replacements for the shortlist.
Conversations will be had about the state of the market, salary expectations, future prospects in the company versus their existing company. You need to feel secure your consultant is equipped to be consultative. Candidate expectations need to be carefully managed, and a more diplomatic approach required to stand very credible people down but still keep your name in good order in the market.
Briefing recruiters and creating a PSL
Once you have decided broadly at what level you might need to recruit, meeting your recruiter will improve the relationship, allowing you to gauge whether or not you think they will present your company and team in the best light to prospective candidates. The recruiter will get a far better feel for the client and, over time, as the relationship grows, be able to be a good sounding board with respect to the 'softer' personality attributes that would suit the team.If the recruitment exercise is one that lends itself to database search then it would be wise to use two or three recruiters exclusively. The in-house market is fragmented, which means candidates learn who the keys players are and register with them accordingly.
If however the role is one which should be advertised then it is far more effective to use one recruiter exclusively. The lines of communication are clear, and both client and candidates will all know where they stand in the process.
If recruitment of in-house lawyers is likely to be an ongoing need, you may consider creating a PSL or preferred supplier list.
There are a number of advantages with using a PSL, not least that using just a couple of agencies, for instance, will mean you can negotiate better rates as consultants will be secure that they will always have an option to work on any recruitment assignments. In addition, there are fewer organisations to brief, fewer people to deal with and you can expect a better flow of well-briefed, 'on-spec' candidates because your suppliers will be better-briefed.
If you are using a PSL, it is important to understand which consultant in the agency is dealing with your mandates. Make sure you are not speaking to a senior consultant initially with the understanding they are doing the work, and finding out someone more junior and inexperienced is in fact presenting you and your company to candidates!
There are some downsides with a PSL. A PSL can be restrictive if you want to use a consultant who you know will give you the service you are looking for but who hasn't been through the tender procedure. A PSL can also feel restrictive if the role is particularly tricky to fill. In that case if you are unable to advertise, going to the whole market, in an attempt to find that elusive candidate, may prove more fruitful.
Advertising
Once your PSL is in place, or your chosen recruiter fully-briefed, the time will come to advertise. It is very important to clarify the brief from the start before the advertisement is drafted. A written proposal countersigned by the client is the best way of achieving this clarity.Let your recruiter write the copy for adverts and book the advertising. Recruiters will be able to get better rates than you will and writing adverts is what they are paid for (plus it saves you time!)
Responses will come to the recruiters and they will interview candidates and shortlist for your approval, submitting only the candidates which fit the brief. Avoid at all costs having direct contact with candidates, and refer any third party applications to your chosen recruiters (this is often stated in the ads). This allows proper benchmarking of candidates to take place and avoids embarrassing and messy administrative problems.
Advertising v search
Of course, advertising is not your only option. Search - often called headhunting - is not to be confused with contingent recruitment, but is a tool that is used for very specific roles where there is a defined target list.Basically, search is expensive and the market too large for it to be effective. For most general in-house roles, the candidate 'pool' may encompass both the broader in-house market (both within your sector and outside it) plus the entirety of private practice. Even if a candidate is required to have had previous in-house experience, this could include people in private practice who have had time on secondment as well as private practice lawyers with previous permanent in-house experience. Searching in such a broad pool would be like finding a needle in a haystack.
As the pool of candidates is so diverse, the most effective method is to advertise in the recognised legal publications. All lawyers receive these publications and all scan the recruitment pages to see what is happening. Most lawyers are quite conservative by nature and may not accept a headhunt call in any event. If the call is taken and interest gained the candidate will always want to be sold something more and there is a real chance that they will use the process as a benchmarking exercise to see if they are happy in the current environment, and often do not move when it comes to offer stage.
Advertising reaches a wider target audience and has an important collateral benefit of raising the companies profile in the market. It also has a set timetable where interview dates can be pencilled in advance into diaries, and the business can be managed as to when they can expect the new hire to join.
Shortlisting - how many candidates to interview?
Following a successful advertising campaign, the shortlist will be reflective of how well-briefed the consultant is. A competent consultant should produce a shortlist which reflects the brief, however short it is. It is worth considering that the 'pool' of candidates for your role might be very small indeed, and that even the best-drafted ad may only draw a few responses.Responses to advertised assignments can vary enormously. If you have had a large response you may want to see at least six candidates. It is always advisable to see at least three candidates - if you are able - in order to allow for unforeseen changes in candidates circumstances, such as your preferred candidate being counter offered.
Interviews at shortlist stage
Candidates who respond to adverts tend to be motivated to move, however it is important to make sure the candidate has worked hard during the interview.Why? An easy interview resulting in an early offer may lull the candidate into a false sense of security - they may feel that if they have secured an offer this easily, it's going to happen in spades if they explore the market further. This is particularly common with candidates from private practice who may not have moved before and who may have a somewhat 'romantic' view of industry.
Making them work during the interview will dispel this romanticism and make them realise that working in-house is a challenging role-change, which they will be seeking but in an alternative environment.
It is always preferable to interview a candidate at least twice, and give them an opportunity to meet the team. Often, asking the candidate to complete a technical question is a good way of exploring their skills and seeing if their approach is the right one for your organisation. Some clients chose to give the exercise in advance, others present it to candidates at an interview without any advance warning. If there is a third interview it can be helpful to ask a member of the business who they will be working with on a regular basis to be involved in order to get a different slant on the candidates fit.
Making an offer
Do be led by the recruitment consultant on the expectations of the candidate. Most candidates are quite savvy and know their market worth, and an offer that is well thought-out can make the difference between gaining an acceptance or a refusal from a preferred candidate.Most candidates will expect an uplift on a move if they are moving from another in-house environment, but do accept that their base salary might be lower if moving from a top tier firm. However more often than not the total package will be greater in-house than their base in practice.
Getting the offer letter to them quickly can also make a great difference. Once candidates accept they like to feel wanted by their new employer, and this can make the difference if your preferred candidate finds themselves in a buy back situation.