Recruiters’ unlisted positions. Why is this a thing?

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
objctnyrhnr

Moderator
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:44 am

Recruiters’ unlisted positions. Why is this a thing?

Postby objctnyrhnr » Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:42 pm

Recruiter (I trust...enough) mentioned to me that she is aware of an unlisted biglaw lateral position. I went to the website and it just was not listed. I was shocked. Let’s assume she’s telling the truth. I am wondering why this is a thing? I had heard anecdotally about this, but didn’t believe it until I saw it (assuming, again, it is real).

Thoughts?

CanadianWolf

Diamond
Posts: 10722
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Recruiters’ unlisted positions. Why is this a thing?

Postby CanadianWolf » Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:00 pm

Maybe the person in that position hasn't been let go yet, or maybe the recruiter is trying to get another client with the lure of an unposted (pocket listing) position.

Anonymous User
Posts: 327401
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Recruiters’ unlisted positions. Why is this a thing?

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:30 pm

My firm does not always list available openings and often works directly with recruiters instead. I didn't know that was out of the norm.

objctnyrhnr

Moderator
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Recruiters’ unlisted positions. Why is this a thing?

Postby objctnyrhnr » Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:33 pm

Anonymous User wrote:My firm does not always list available openings and often works directly with recruiters instead. I didn't know that was out of the norm.


Why though?

User avatar
tyrant_flycatcher

Bronze
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2014 10:05 pm

Re: Recruiters’ unlisted positions. Why is this a thing?

Postby tyrant_flycatcher » Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:10 pm

objctnyrhnr wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:My firm does not always list available openings and often works directly with recruiters instead. I didn't know that was out of the norm.


Why though?


Because it's easier to let someone else initially identify/vet candidates?

User avatar
Pomeranian

Bronze
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:23 pm

Re: Recruiters’ unlisted positions. Why is this a thing?

Postby Pomeranian » Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:16 pm

Delete

Anonymous User
Posts: 327401
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Recruiters’ unlisted positions. Why is this a thing?

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:34 pm

tyrant_flycatcher wrote:
objctnyrhnr wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:My firm does not always list available openings and often works directly with recruiters instead. I didn't know that was out of the norm.


Why though?


Because it's easier to let someone else initially identify/vet candidates?


If this is the reason, it would go against the “why go through recruiter when you can apply directly” theory...like if firms really do depend on recruiters to vet/trust their judgment to some degree.

User avatar
4LTsPointingNorth

Bronze
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:17 am

Re: Recruiters’ unlisted positions. Why is this a thing?

Postby 4LTsPointingNorth » Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:39 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
tyrant_flycatcher wrote:
objctnyrhnr wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:My firm does not always list available openings and often works directly with recruiters instead. I didn't know that was out of the norm.


Why though?


Because it's easier to let someone else initially identify/vet candidates?


If this is the reason, it would go against the “why go through recruiter when you can apply directly” theory...like if firms really do depend on recruiters to vet/trust their judgment to some degree.


Is the purpose of this thread just a clumsy and roundabout attempt to rehabilitate the value of recruiters in the current TLS zeitgeist?

User avatar
LaLiLuLeLo

Silver
Posts: 649
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:54 am

Re: Recruiters’ unlisted positions. Why is this a thing?

Postby LaLiLuLeLo » Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:57 pm

4LTsPointingNorth wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
tyrant_flycatcher wrote:
objctnyrhnr wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:My firm does not always list available openings and often works directly with recruiters instead. I didn't know that was out of the norm.


Why though?


Because it's easier to let someone else initially identify/vet candidates?


If this is the reason, it would go against the “why go through recruiter when you can apply directly” theory...like if firms really do depend on recruiters to vet/trust their judgment to some degree.


Is the purpose of this thread just a clumsy and roundabout attempt to rehabilitate the value of recruiters in the current TLS zeitgeist?


Nice try, new overlords.

spha12

New
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:27 pm

Re: Recruiters’ unlisted positions. Why is this a thing?

Postby spha12 » Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:32 am

Anonymous User wrote:
tyrant_flycatcher wrote:
objctnyrhnr wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:My firm does not always list available openings and often works directly with recruiters instead. I didn't know that was out of the norm.


Why though?


Because it's easier to let someone else initially identify/vet candidates?


If this is the reason, it would go against the “why go through recruiter when you can apply directly” theory...like if firms really do depend on recruiters to vet/trust their judgment to some degree.


With the amount of money law firms are putting towards their in-house recruitment teams the unlisted position is more and more a thing of the past. A few still utilize it for some reason. Law firms have an issue with change, that's for sure. With that said, law firms will always continue to utilize recruiters because the recruiters will directly email candidates at their rival law firms with the most applicable experience (you'll never see someone from Paul Weiss recruiting email someone from STB directly) and because they used a recruiter it is considered OK. If they didn't use recruiters then their candidate pool would simply be people searching for a job.



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.