Bypassing my recruiter Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hello all,

I recently had an interview with a biglaw firm via an independent recruiter. The recruiter told me it appears like the firm would be interested in making an offer. The problem is: I am currently in-house, and the "hiring committee" did not agree to pay me according to my bar admission year, and would instead pay me like a fourth year (I have been admitted to the bar 8 years ago) because they don't know how experienced I am per biglaw standards. However, the hiring partner does not want to hire me with a 4th year salary, because he would then run the risk that I may eventually be poached by another firm willing to pay me according to my bar admission year. Seems like there is a discordance between the hiring partner's view and the hiring committee's view on the question.

Should I call the hiring partner directly (and thus, bypass the recruiter) to explain to him that I WANT to work at their firm WITH a lower year salary, because this would give me more time to "transition" to private practice (i.e. firm expectations would be lower than if i had 7th year salary)? This could reassure him. Anyways, I would be afraid if they offered me my bar year, because then the firm's expectations would probably be too high.

Would calling the partner directly to discuss be a bad move?

Thank you.

[2013]

No, don’t do it yourself. It looks tacky. The point of the recruiter is to do all of that awkward stuff for the firm (and you). Tell the recruiter and she or he will relay that information to the firm.

[notinbiglaw]

You have nothing to gain here by agreeing to lower. Let recruiter work it out.

Its not just the salary either. Starting as 8th year gives you realistic chances of making non-equity partner/counsel without having to lateral again at the firm. Start as 4th year and chances are you’re looking at another lateral in 3 or 4 years if you want to make partner.

[Yea All Right]

You have nothing to gain here by agreeing to lower. Let recruiter work it out.

Its not just the salary either. Starting as 8th year gives you realistic chances of making non-equity partner/counsel without having to lateral again at the firm. Start as 4th year and chances are you’re looking at another lateral in 3 or 4 years if you want to make partner.

I think OP doesn't want to set themselves up for failure to meet the firm's expectations by commanding too high a salary relative to their job experience, though.

Typically I'm a proponent of getting your money, but I get where OP is coming from.

[UnfrozenCaveman]

Use your recruiter, but just understand your recruiter's conflicts in this situation, i.e., that he or she is paid a percentage of your annual salary.

On the question of whether you should take the lower class year offer, maybe a probationary period would be good. You might fill in to a senior associate role easily.

[Anonymous User]

OP here.

I think OP doesn't want to set themselves up for failure to meet the firm's expectations by commanding too high a salary relative to their job experience, though.

That's exactly my concern. Not sure I could make partner within 1-2 years after lateraling if I have no previous law firm experience... A lower salary (and bar year) would allow to set the firm's expectations accordingly and give me the required time to build a proper practice.

[notinbiglaw]

They know your situation. Expectations won’t change much on a day to day basis when you volunteer for a big pay cut.

I mean, what you going to do? Go around and constantly remind people to give you slack because you’re considered 4th year?

That’s silly. Go get your salary and let people know you were hired from an in house position and they should adjust expectations accordingly. Yeah, there will be some people who won’t like you get more seniority despite knowing less but that’s true with most laterals (even laterals from same practice groups would have to learn new procedures, templates, and often new computer systems and as result are less effective, at least for a time, than associates more junior.)

[QContinuum]

They know your situation. Expectations won’t change much on a day to day basis when you volunteer for a big pay cut.

I mean, what you going to do? Go around and constantly remind people to give you slack because you’re considered 4th year?

I mean, wouldn't OP simply introduce themselves to seniors - when seeking work - as a "new fourth year" instead of a new - what was it - seventh year? OP would then be staffed as a fourth year midlevel, instead of as a seventh year senior.

[notinbiglaw]

I guess that works.

But why not just say my experience was entirely in house and I have a lot to learn?

I just feel like OP is trying to give up a lot to manage expectations when there are better and less expensive ways to go about it.

[QContinuum]

I guess that works.

But why not just say my experience was entirely in house and I have a lot to learn?

I just feel like OP is trying to give up a lot to manage expectations when there are better and less expensive ways to go about it.

OTOH it looks like the hiring committee is resisting hiring OP as a seventh year. It would seem to be in OP's interests to help defuse this by voluntarily accepting a lower class year.

[notinbiglaw]

Yeah, just let the recruiter handle that.

I think the best way to look at this is the firm is hiring a lawyer with 8 year in house experience and the skills that experience brings. The years of credit given is basically salary negotiation in disguise.

You see this with international hires too, even if they worked in same practice areas (in Skansen HK office for example working on American M&A.)