Recruiters’ unlisted positions. Why is this a thing? Forum

[objctnyrhnr]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[tyrant_flycatcher]

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?

[Pomeranian]

Delete

[Anonymous User]

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.

[4LTsPointingNorth]

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?

[LaLiLuLeLo]

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]

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.