In-house recruiter phone call, what to expect? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Have a phone call with an in-house recruiter for a position that I applied for. What's the general purpose of these phone calls? Are they similar to the 20 min screener that law firms generally do, or is it more informal? Any insight on what to expect would be much appreciated.

[Anonymous User]

I just had one of these the other day. It was only 20 minutes long but wouldn't say informal. The recruiter had a defined list of questions to ask me about my experience/qualifications.

[Anonymous User]

I just had one of these the other day. It was only 20 minutes long but wouldn't say informal. The recruiter had a defined list of questions to ask me about my experience/qualifications.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Thanks, that's helpful. Sounds like the equivalent of a screener at a law firm.

[Elston Gunn]

It depends on the company, but yes it’s usually similar to a law firm screener. Though it tends to be a little more rigid than a law firm screener, since the recruiter likely doesn’t actually have much familiarity with the job and therefore is going to stick more tightly to their planned questions.

Sometimes though it’s like 25% screener and 75% the recruiter preparing you for the interview process and volunteering the information that it might be kind of awkward to ask the actual lawyers (eg, expected comp package). But yeah I would prepare for it like it’s a screener.

[Anonymous User]

It depends on the company, but yes it’s usually similar to a law firm screener. Though it tends to be a little more rigid than a law firm screener, since the recruiter likely doesn’t actually have much familiarity with the job and therefore is going to stick more tightly to their planned questions.

Sometimes though it’s like 25% screener and 75% the recruiter preparing you for the interview process and volunteering the information that it might be kind of awkward to ask the actual lawyers (eg, expected comp package). But yeah I would prepare for it like it’s a screener.

OP here. Interesting that recruiters divulge expected comp info. Thanks.

[Anonymous User]

They're not much like law firm screeners, IMO. The recruiter isn't an attorney and doesn't know much about legal issues. He or she generally will ask a few basic questions to make sure you meet the requirements in the job description ("tell me about your experience drafting commercial contracts..."), as well as some questions about your work experience. You'll probably get the standard questions too like why do you want to work here. Once I got a few behavioral questions, but that seems uncommon. Then the recruiter will outline the interview process, e.g. when you'll hear back and what the next round will look like.

As I understand, the recruiter typically provides your answers to the hiring manager, who decides which candidates advance.

[Anonymous User]

They're not much like law firm screeners, IMO. The recruiter isn't an attorney and doesn't know much about legal issues. He or she generally will ask a few basic questions to make sure you meet the requirements in the job description ("tell me about your experience drafting commercial contracts..."), as well as some questions about your work experience. You'll probably get the standard questions too like why do you want to work here. Once I got a few behavioral questions, but that seems uncommon. Then the recruiter will outline the interview process, e.g. when you'll hear back and what the next round will look like.

As I understand, the recruiter typically provides your answers to the hiring manager, who decides which candidates advance.

Do you know if there’s any meaningful filtering of candidates for the recruiter interview? I’m the anon who responded about having had one of these recently and am curious if it means I’ve passed some kind of initial threshold at least. I have very little experience (which the position didn’t explicitly require, since I’d be working under the GC) and I’m worried the recruiter just didn’t pay attention to that so I’ll immediately get dinged at the next stage.

[Anonymous User]

Do you know if there’s any meaningful filtering of candidates for the recruiter interview? I’m the anon who responded about having had one of these recently and am curious if it means I’ve passed some kind of initial threshold at least. I have very little experience (which the position didn’t explicitly require, since I’d be working under the GC) and I’m worried the recruiter just didn’t pay attention to that so I’ll immediately get dinged at the next stage.

Yes, you've cleared some initial threshold. Most in-house positions get hundreds of applicants, and only a few applicants will even get a screener. I have no idea what percent of applicants don't advance past the screener, but FWIW, I'm not a strong interviewer and I've never failed to advance. I think they're largely just trying to make sure you are who you say you are so they don't waste the attorneys' time.

[Elston Gunn]

It depends on the company, but yes it’s usually similar to a law firm screener. Though it tends to be a little more rigid than a law firm screener, since the recruiter likely doesn’t actually have much familiarity with the job and therefore is going to stick more tightly to their planned questions.

Sometimes though it’s like 25% screener and 75% the recruiter preparing you for the interview process and volunteering the information that it might be kind of awkward to ask the actual lawyers (eg, expected comp package). But yeah I would prepare for it like it’s a screener.

OP here. Interesting that recruiters divulge expected comp info. Thanks.

It doesn’t always happen, but especially if they know comp is far below what you’re currently making at the firm, it’s in everyone’s best interests to make that clear before you go too far into the interview process.

Also, +1 to the post above about you having cleared some initial threshold. Sometimes it’s just a decision made by the recruiter on their own though. One time i had a screener with a recruiter who talked as if it were a given I’d have the full interview process, only to tell me the following week that she loved me but the lawyers wanted someone with more experience. (I was below the experience minimum on the job posting but had applied anyway.) So I wouldn’t take it too hard if you don’t advance, though you have a good chance to.

[Anonymous User]

Do you know if there’s any meaningful filtering of candidates for the recruiter interview? I’m the anon who responded about having had one of these recently and am curious if it means I’ve passed some kind of initial threshold at least. I have very little experience (which the position didn’t explicitly require, since I’d be working under the GC) and I’m worried the recruiter just didn’t pay attention to that so I’ll immediately get dinged at the next stage.

Yes, you've cleared some initial threshold. Most in-house positions get hundreds of applicants, and only a few applicants will even get a screener. I have no idea what percent of applicants don't advance past the screener, but FWIW, I'm not a strong interviewer and I've never failed to advance. I think they're largely just trying to make sure you are who you say you are so they don't waste the attorneys' time.

OP here. Thanks, so it sounds like (for the most part) the goal with the recruiter is to make sure you come off as a normal person that can hold a conversation, etc.