Point of working with a recruiter? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Unless you’re a slam dunk candidate for a position, is it useless to work with a recruiter? I get recruiter emails regularly, and I wonder if it’s worth working with one, even for the “unposted” positions they mention. I’m not T14 graduate, and I didn’t excel in law school. I don’t see why a firm would pay a third party an insane amount of cash to submit me. At best, I’m a marginal candidate for some of these positions. I think that’s why a lot of the boutique recruiting firms don’t even respond to my inquiries (since I’d be difficult to place with a recruiter fee).

I’m curious because one of the big recruiting firms had an “unposted” role today in the email blast. It’s very clear from the email which firm it is. I’m wondering if I should just submit by myself instead of working with a recruiter. There’s no post, so I’d just have to email the firm directly.

I spoke to a recruiter who said firms like associates who are vetted by recruiters. Is there any truth to this? I feel like firms know that these recruiters have 30 minute convos with associates and that’s the extent of the relationship.

Sorry for the long post. Just ramping up my lateral search and deciding how to proceed (use a recruiter v self-apply/ask classmates when possible).

[malibustacy]

I mean where are you now?

[Anonymous User]

I mean where are you now?

I’m at a boutique that’s Chambers ranked in my area. Does where I currently am change the answer regarding using a recruiter?

[Whatislaw]

Doubt it. Where you are now may influence pedigree purposes if the next firm cares about that.

[Sad248]

I'm no expert on this, but I think the main benefit is indeed the unposted positions and that they will take care of many of the logistics. Plus they have contacts at the firms, so it's a bit better than coming in cold. But I think you have a reference at the job itself, I don't think there is any reason to use a recruiter. If you're trying to cast a wide net and you don't have contacts at all the jobs you're looking at: use a recruiter.

[Yardbird]

I’ll echo this but that it’s also important to work with a *good* recruiter. Most of the emails you get may not be actual positions and is just the recruiter phishing for clients. Try to find a recruiter you like that someone you know has already used and recommends.

[Mr. Kister]

I'm a huge fan of using a recruiter, especially because the position I went with when I lateralled was unposted. I also wouldn't have wanted to have to deal directly with the firms/companies I interviewed with while being very busy at work. My recruiter kept all that organized.

Friends had counseled that using a recruiter was foolish, citing pretty much the reasons you give. Glad I didn't listen.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a huge fan of using a recruiter, especially because the position I went with when I lateralled was unposted. I also wouldn't have wanted to have to deal directly with the firms/companies I interviewed with while being very busy at work. My recruiter kept all that organized.

Friends had counseled that using a recruiter was foolish, citing pretty much the reasons you give. Glad I didn't listen.

OP here. Could you generally tell me what your credentials were? I’m leaning towards using a recruiter because of the hassle of applying by myself, but again, I’m concerned about my credentials being a hindrance when there’s a recruiter fee involved.

[ChickenSalad]

It doesn’t make sense to apply with a recruiter to publicly posted jobs. Recruiters should be applying to unposted jobs because of their credentials and relationships. That’s how I got my job with a recruiter.

There are a ton of recruiters that will take people on and then just ignore them. They aren’t actively doing anything. Don’t work with those people just because they’ll work with you

[moxcoal]

+1 on using a recruiter. My outcomes were positive, but even if it hadn't worked out, the recruiter saved a lot of time and effort. Looking into firms and individually applying to each is not time I had while working.

[Anonymous User]

anyone recommend using a recruiter to go in-house?

[Anonymous User]

anyone recommend using a recruiter to go in-house?

I used a recruiter to go in-house, I think it’s the right call generally. Unlike firms, in-house recruiting/HR departments don’t specialize in attorney hiring, so they’re less equipped to know what they’re looking for in a resume when identifying whom to interview. And they get dozens or even hundreds of applicants for each position, so someone with that knowledge has to do the filtering. It’s just worth it to pay the fee to get someone to do all the legwork. Of the four or five positions my company has filled since I’ve been there, I believe all but one has been a candidate from a recruiter. Maybe other companies handle it differently, perhaps if they’re large enough to have dedicated legal recruiting people working there, but from what I’ve seen, it’s pretty beneficial.

[Mr. Kister]

I'm a huge fan of using a recruiter, especially because the position I went with when I lateralled was unposted. I also wouldn't have wanted to have to deal directly with the firms/companies I interviewed with while being very busy at work. My recruiter kept all that organized.

Friends had counseled that using a recruiter was foolish, citing pretty much the reasons you give. Glad I didn't listen.

OP here. Could you generally tell me what your credentials were? I’m leaning towards using a recruiter because of the hassle of applying by myself, but again, I’m concerned about my credentials being a hindrance when there’s a recruiter fee involved.

Middle of the pack T-14.

I just remembered that I did have one interviewer ask why I didn’t have my friend who works there refer me as it would have been cheaper for them. I still got an offer from that firm though.

[Anonymous User]

When I looked to lateral, I found out that a firm I was interested in was hiring in my practice area, emailed (from my personal email of course) the main partner in that practice group directly, got an interview, got hired, and got a bonus for not using a recruiter. The firm is a V50 firm. I have T14 credentials, but I don't think it matters much so long as the credentials are not below the firm's standard for candidates.

I like to chat with recruiters to get some information on the market whenever they have any. Harrison Barnes is a controversial figure, but I thought he was very helpful to chat with about career moves generally.

[nealric]

anyone recommend using a recruiter to go in-house?

I used a recruiter to go in-house, I think it’s the right call generally. Unlike firms, in-house recruiting/HR departments don’t specialize in attorney hiring, so they’re less equipped to know what they’re looking for in a resume when identifying whom to interview. And they get dozens or even hundreds of applicants for each position, so someone with that knowledge has to do the filtering. It’s just worth it to pay the fee to get someone to do all the legwork. Of the four or five positions my company has filled since I’ve been there, I believe all but one has been a candidate from a recruiter. Maybe other companies handle it differently, perhaps if they’re large enough to have dedicated legal recruiting people working there, but from what I’ve seen, it’s pretty beneficial.

Disagree here. Many companies are pretty allergic to paying recruiter fees. In fact, I've been barred from accepting recruiter referred candidates.

You are right that HR departments don't know what good legal resumes look like, but a good hiring manager will give them pretty specific criteria for culling that takes most of the guesswork out (i.e. Amlaw 250 experience, school/grade criteria, practice area experience). They get a ton of resumes, but the vast majority won't be remotely qualified. You'd be amazed how many resumes come from applicants like new Cooley graduates applying for senior counsel roles that ask for 10+ years experience. They may get 500 resumes, but only 50 or so are worth the hiring manager's time. From those, they can pretty quickly suss out who's worth talking to.

That said, having a personal connection can be quite helpful in distinguishing those final few resumes. That personal connection is often 1,000x more helpful to the hiring manager than some recruiter who they've never heard of.

Main benefit of a recruiter is for an associate who is slammed and just doesn't have time to do the leg work. But even then, you can't completely delegate. Their incentive is to place you somewhere- anywhere, not to place you somewhere that is actually right for you.

[2013]

When I looked to lateral, I found out that a firm I was interested in was hiring in my practice area, emailed (from my personal email of course) the main partner in that practice group directly, got an interview, got hired, and got a bonus for not using a recruiter. The firm is a V50 firm. I have T14 credentials, but I don't think it matters much so long as the credentials are not below the firm's standard for candidates.

I like to chat with recruiters to get some information on the market whenever they have any. Harrison Barnes is a controversial figure, but I thought he was very helpful to chat with about career moves generally.

This is interesting and insightful. General wisdom on here is to always to contact recruiting (not the partner) for open positions.

[glitched]

Recruiters are useful because they can do all the annoying things like following up without making you look super desperate.

[Anonymous User]

I used one to lateral to my current firm.

Pros:

1. They may know of unposted positions.

2. They may have a good history with the hiring decision makers. Your resume will go straight to the right people with one phone call.

Cons:

1. They are expensive for the firm.

2. If they do not have a good relationship with the firm's insiders, they have very low value.

I would ask the recruiter how many candidates he/she has placed with that firm. That will let you know if they have a good relationship.

[Anonymous User]

How do you know if what a recruiter tells you is true though? I don't mean just the info about a firm they are pitching, but their connection and placements at a given firm?

[nealric]

How do you know if what a recruiter tells you is true though? I don't mean just the info about a firm they are pitching, but their connection and placements at a given firm?

There's no silver bullet. You hope they tell the truth when asked about these things, but they have a strong incentive to lie. You mostly have to go by reputation. Most of the folks cold calling you aren't worth your time.

[Anonymous User]

How do you know if what a recruiter tells you is true though? I don't mean just the info about a firm they are pitching, but their connection and placements at a given firm?

I'm the anon who posted. When I spoke to the recruiter, he knew the hiring decision makers by name. You can ask for references-the names of laterals that the recruiter placed.

[Anonymous User]

How do you know if what a recruiter tells you is true though? I don't mean just the info about a firm they are pitching, but their connection and placements at a given firm?

There's no silver bullet. You hope they tell the truth when asked about these things, but they have a strong incentive to lie. You mostly have to go by reputation. Most of the folks cold calling you aren't worth your time.

Is there a source we can turn to for finding the reputable ones?

[Anonymous User]

How do you know if what a recruiter tells you is true though? I don't mean just the info about a firm they are pitching, but their connection and placements at a given firm?

I'm the anon who posted. When I spoke to the recruiter, he knew the hiring decision makers by name. You can ask for references-the names of laterals that the recruiter placed.

So do you then call those laterals to verify?