How Long Is Too Long To Wait for the Right Job Candidate?

Julie Q. Brush, author of The Lawyer Whisperer blog, writes taking six months to complete a search for a routine position is too long and should prompt a review of your hiring process.

August 07, 2019 at 10:30 AM

4 minute read

Julie Q. Brush

Q: I’m a hiring manager and I have been looking to hire a lawyer for six months. Is this length of time normal in today’s market? If not, what am I doing wrong?

A: The state of a legal market carries with it different characteristics. When things are slow, employers possess greater leverage in the hiring process. In this situation, employers have a wider and deeper candidate pool from which to choose-and candidates have fewer opportunities to consider. So employers can drive a harder bargain when it comes to compensation and titles, which keeps these matters at bay.

By contrast, an active market swings the pendulum-which often results in a “buyer’s market”. In this dynamic, leverage shifts to the candidates. And attorneys seeking new opportunities have a greater selection from which to choose and from which multiple offers can, and usually do arise. These offers are more heavily negotiated as well, which drives market compensation … and titles up. Slowly, but surely. Finally, the hiring process can take longer due to rejected offers and strong market competition.

NOT FOR REPRINT

Latest

Trending

Who Got The Work

Joseph J. Mueller and Rachel Bier of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have entered appearances for Omachron Alpha, Omachron Intellectual Property and SharkNinja Operating in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 16 in Massachusetts District Court by Kirkland & Ellis, asserts three patents in connection with SharkNinja's sale of the 'Vertex' and 'Stratos' cordless vacuum cleaners. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs, is 1:24-cv-12373, Dyson, Inc. et al v. SharkNinja, Inc. et al.

Who Got The Work

Shloime Fellig of Latham & Watkins has entered an appearance for Ardelyx the company's CEO and CFO in a pending securities class action related to Xphozah, a drug which treats kidney disease and end-stage renal disease. The complaint, filed Aug. 16 in Massachusetts District Court by Pomerantz LLP, contends that the defendants failed to disclose that the company would not be seeking the drug’s acceptance into the Transitional Drug Add-on Payment Adjustment, a bundled payment system regulated by the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin, is 1:24-cv-12119, Yarborough v. Ardelyx, Inc. et al.

Who Got The Work

Alexander P. Ott, Megan Corrigan and Karen Gover of McDermott Will & Emery have entered appearances for Analog Devices, a Massachusetts-based manufacturer of semiconductor processing equipment, in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, which asserts two patents, was filed July 9 in Massachusetts District Court by Arrowood LLP and the Devlin Law Firm on behalf of Ocean Semiconductors. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, is 1:24-cv-11759, Ocean Semiconductors LLC v. Analog Devices Inc.

Who Got The Work

Forrest M. 'Teo' Seger of Clark Hill has entered an appearance for Equifax Information Services in a pending lawsuit for claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case was filed Aug. 13 in Texas Western District Court by Halvorsen Klote on behalf of Quinton Humphrey. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, is 5:24-cv-00892, Humphrey v. LVNV Funding, LLC et al.

Who Got The Work

Winston & Strawn partners Amanda Groves and Shawn R. Obi have entered appearances for Wells Fargo Bank in a pending consumer class action. The case, filed Aug. 13 in California Northern District Court by the Kazerouni Law Group and Kellett & Bartholow, contends that Wells Fargo overcharged tens of thousands of customers on their mortgage loan accounts and attempted to downplay liability by sending out 'cryptic' letters and cashier checks. According to the suit, the defendant's failure to disclose to customers how their accounts were overcharged or to provide any accounting or itemization of actual damages constitutes a violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang, is 3:24-cv-05105, Prado v. Wells Fargo & Company et al.

Learn More About Radar