Know when a candidate will, or won’t, relocate for your department
Many of our firm’s search assignments involve geographic relocation. I learned the hard way about relocation cold feet when we lost a placement…
July 19, 2017 at 08:11 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Many of our firm's search assignments involve geographic relocation. I learned the hard way about relocation cold feet when we lost a placement with Fifth Third Bank in Cincinnati twelve years ago. Our candidate had accepted a position and backed out two days before his start date.
Since then, we have gotten pretty good at figuring out who is willing to pull the trigger on such a major life change. That assessment is just as important as matching credentials and culture fit.
The reality of moving is different from the thought of moving. For law departments that are self-sourcing without the benefit of an outside recruiter (candidates are often more open with outside recruiters about their concerns or hesitations), here are five tips:
- Don't assume that a single person is more likely to than a married person to relocate, especially if the move is to a small market. The opposite is true. Singles have to face the reality check of restarting a personal life. A happily married candidate has a cheerleader and support system in place.
- Spouse support is everything. An early warning sign of a doomed process is when a candidate wants to learn more about your opportunity before discussing it at home. It's a sign that the candidate will need to lobby his or her spouse to support a move, and that rarely leads to a good outcome.
- Older kids are problematic. Even more than a reluctant spouse, teenage children have tremendous influence in this process. Almost without exception, our successful relocation experiences have involved candidates with young kids or no kids.
- Look for clues on the resume. Anyone who has already worked in multiple locations, lived overseas, or at least attended college at a school far away from home is usually the best candidate for relocation.
- Desperate is a misconception and should be avoided anyway. Many employers assume that an unemployed attorney will relocate. It's a bad assumption, and this is actually the most common cold feet scenario. Currently employed candidates tend to do a good job of thinking through the location before investing time and effort in an interview process. Conversely, and understandably, unemployed candidates seize interview opportunities and always show great enthusiasm early. The relocation reality check tends to hit them later in the process. Even unemployed professionals rarely relocate if they are struggling with the life change that comes with moving.
My main piece of advice is to talk about relocation at every step in the interview process. Ask questions that will get the candidate talking about the pros and cons of relocation for her. Ask if she has discussed the potential move with family and friends. Get her talking about it early and often.
For individuals reading this column from the employee perspective, I don't have advice but I do have a request. On behalf of employers everywhere, I plead with you to please think through any relocation scenario before throwing your hat into the ring for an opening. If you are married, discuss it with your spouse now, not later. You may save all of us, most importantly yourself, a great deal of time and emotional energy. Only proceed if you are excited about the move.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Reason a GC Abruptly Departs May Not Be What You Think
'The Unheard of Superpower': How Women's Soft Skills Can Drive Success in Negotiations
Want to Get Ahead in Your Career? Find a Truth Teller
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250