Over the past few years, the occasional article has been published discussing the advent of head-hunting in London's legal marketplace.
The general themes of such articles have been the argument that London lags behind New York (where head-hunting is endemic), the growing awareness among London firms of the need for a more proactive recruitment solution and the 'battle' for market share between the 'passive' file-search agencies and the new breed of more 'aggressive' head-hunters.
There is little purpose in dwelling on such tired cliches. There can be no doubt that London law firms have fully embraced the concept of head-hunting.
There are very few firms remaining that have not crossed the perceived 'great divide' and retained head-hunters to fill key vacancies on a proactive basis.

Why the market has changed for recruitment agencies
The late 1980s/early 1990s saw a plethora of recruitment agencies setting up in London. Most survived the recession and are now established as the market leaders in the file search/retained advertising market.
Those at the top of this particular tree have always been at pains to refute any suggestion that they would ever 'tap', 'poach' or 'cold call' a candidate. Their rationale (fully supported by their law firm clients) is that they cannot properly serve the market if they are – or are perceived to be – abusing information given to them by their clients.
This also allows them to act for the entire market, rather than having to choose those who are clients (from whom they cannot 'poach') and those who are target firms (from whom they can).
Such recruiters generally charge anything from 20% upwards. They maintain databases of candidates who have contacted them looking to move from their present positions.
Candidates register with these agencies in response to specific or generic advertisements that they have seen in the legal press, because of the agency's reputation or through referrals.
When instructed by firms with vacancies, the agent cross-checks the details of those on his/her system to find potential 'matches'.
The reputable recruiter will then contact candidates who are registered with them, seeking approval to send their details to the firms.
The obvious disadvantage with this form of recruitment is that the candidates need to make the first move. As a result, the firm's choice is limited to those candidates who have actively registered their dissatisfaction with their current firm.
There are other issues to consider:
l Not all recruitment agencies are as scrupulous as the leading pack. Some apparently do 'cold call' candidates, claiming to act on behalf of firms. Usually the agency will have no such authority.
l There is the question of what actually constitutes 'cold calling'? Is staying in touch with archived candidates on a database classified as good service or simply a neat technicality to avoid the 'we never approach candidates' claim?
l Profile-raising/recruitment advertising was a boon to recruiters two or three years ago but this is now on the wane. Firms have realised that expensive, glossy advertisements do not guarantee response.
The growth of marketing departments within firms has led to the recognition that a firm may be better advised to spend its advertising budget on directly marketing to its clients rather than to its peers/competitors.
l Partners, in particular, have expressed concern that even the most scrupulous of recruiters could be receiving instructions, confidential information and significant upfront costs for advertisements for a firm, and at the same time handling the CVs of partners and assistants looking to leave that firm.
This has led to some partners requesting 'no handling' clauses in agreements where, in return for recruitment assignments/advertising campaigns, the recruiter agrees not to handle CVs from that firm for a defined period.
Although most experienced human resource directors regard the situation pragmatically, some partners strongly believe in a 'them and us' culture – an agency cannot properly be acting for them if it is helping people to leave.
This leads us to the more focused head-hunting approach.

The new approach: head-hunting
Most law firms have some kind of horror story to tell about head-hunters. This usually relates either to the 'one-man band' operations that have appeared over recent years (whose techniques allegedly do not reflect the structured, methodical approach of the more established/specialist search organisations in the legal market) or simply to a lack of professionalism by some of the 'sharper' players in the market.
Contrary to popular belief there is a little more science to being a head-hunter than simply being a recruiter with a phone and a list
of names. The big, international search companies have added 'legal' to their existing full-service list of market sectors, with some success.
The real challenge to them is from the specialist legal search consultancies, which combine the thoroughness of research and methodology of the international players with more direct personal knowledge of life as a lawyer (most are former practitioners in large City firms). They also possess a more intimate understanding of the legal market, having focused exclusively on it for a number of years (as recruiters or head-hunters).
There is no substitute during the first contact with a prospective candidate for not only a full knowledge of your brief but also the subtle nuances of the legal market, which cannot be researched but only gained through experience.
The advantage to law firms of retaining head-hunters is that the whole market can be researched and approached, testing potential candidates' interest in the type of role on offer and their motivations for moving.
Through a methodical approach to the identified target market, the client firm can ultimately be satisfied that it has, at shortlist stage, seen details of the best available candidates who are motivated to move to that firm.
Head-hunters generally take a fee of 30%, which is payable in three instalments (retainer, presentation of shortlist and acceptance).
The retainer element covers the extensive upfront investment of time by the head-hunter's research team in focusing on the whole market and by the consultants, who must ensure their brief is as comprehensive as possible. These features are very different from the approach of typical file-search agents.
Also, as soon as the retainer is paid, most head-hunters agree on explicit 'no-poach' clauses with the client firm. This will typically involve an agreement not to approach anyone from the client firm for 12 months.
The client firm can therefore talk fully and frankly to its retained head-hunter about issues ranging from its practice areas through to partnership and remuneration structures. It can be reassured that confidential information is being safely imparted and will only be used for the firm's benefit, with absolutely no risk that the head-hunter will either remove people from the firm or represent those actively looking to leave.
An additional service offered by specialist legal head-hunters is consultancy. Head-hunters generally work on a project basis. Given the strength of their research function, they can offer firms a detailed analysis of specific areas, such as current practices, competitors' practices, projected/planned new areas of practice, competitors' remuneration systems and levels, partnership structures, other market knowledge and trends.
It is more consistent with head-hunters' day-to-day work to provide such analysis and market reports than perhaps is the case with file-search agents.
The legal market in London has changed significantly over the past five years. Further radical change is inevitable over the next few years, particularly in the light of the Clifford Chance merger and other inevitable mergers, the ongoing formation of European alliances, the further advent of US firms opening and building London operations, the accountants, MDPs, limited liability partnerships and so on.
Partner mobility is now the norm. It must only be a matter of time before the non-poaching agreement among the top firms is consigned to the annals of history as yet another quaint, gentlemanly London practice.
Against this backdrop, the need for specialist, focused legal recruiters, who are free to scour the market on behalf of their clients for the best available talent, has never been greater.
The law has caught up with other industry sectors and firms of all sizes now fully recognise the importance of retaining specialist, quality search agencies for the recruitment of partners and senior employees.
Andrew Caulfield is a consultant at Stenhouse Ballantine.