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
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.
Today’s legal market is active. This means competition for the best legal talent is fierce. And landing a great candidate takes recruiting savvy and time. How much time? Is six months too long to go without a successful hire-or is it commonplace?
If the practice area you seek to hire is niche, a six-month search cycle is a bit long, but isn’t an outlier. However, if your specifications call for a mainstream practice such as commercial, corporate, litigation, tech transactions, patent etc. the six-month mark is too long to be without an “I do”—and there are likely other factors that might be compromising your search. Below are a few common culprits:
• Compensation is Too Low. In a buyer’s market, low compensation is the Achilles’ heel of a successful hire. No matter how awesome the role/culture are, candidates will reject offers that aren’t up to snuff. If you are in this situation, evaluate whether you can increase any part or all of the comp (base, bonus, stock) or add a signing bonus to the package. If you cannot, you’ll need to be flexible on seniority, title and/or the candidate’s practice profile in order to change your fate.
• Unattractive Title. Lawyers care about titles. I repeat: Lawyers. Care. About. Titles. And an active market can and usually does produce title inflation. In addition, candidates aren’t likely to make a lateral title move. So, if the title for your position is unappealing, candidates will steer clear. If you can’t upgrade the level, think about something more creative.
• Ineffective Interview Process. When trying to woo the best of the best, employers need to be on their game. Scheduling issues, inconsistent messaging, disorganization, lag time, lowball offers, sloppy delivery. In a good market, tolerance is low for these missteps. How good is your game?
• You’re Looking for Perfect. No candidate is perfect. So if that’s what you’re seeking, failure is certain. Review your candidate feedback and identify where you have some “give” on your specs going forward. That will open up the candidate pool and increase your chances of a successful hire.
• No Hours/Commute Flexibility. Most employers today provide their employees with the opportunity to have “flex” hours and/or work from home one or more days a week. In metropolitan areas where traffic is unbearable, providing this “perk” gives employers a competitive market advantage. If you are digging in around 9-to-6 face time, you are likely losing candidates who otherwise would be a great fit.
• HR Feels Overwhelmed. Today’s HR department is pulled in a thousand directions. And many don’t feel comfortable with the specialization of legal search. If HR feels overwhelmed, your search won’t likely receive the attention it needs for success. So take inventory and make staffing changes as necessary.
Conducting a successful legal search is not easy. And when the market is hot, challenges increase. But even in a hot market, a six-month process without results is too long-and requires examination into what isn’t working and why. So peel the onion and determine what needs adjustment, and adjust. And you’ll be on your way to a quicker, easier finish in no time.
Julie Q. Brush is the founder and author of The Lawyer Whisperer (www.thelawyerwhisperer.com), a career advice column for legal professionals, also found on LinkedIn. She is co-founder of Solutus Legal Search, a legal search/consulting boutique firm, serving as a strategic adviser to lawyers, law firms and corporations.
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 AllBuild It and They Will Come: Tips to Market Your Practice as a Junior Attorney
6 minute readYelp Sues Google for Alleged Antitrust Violations, Citing Previous 'Watershed' Government Ruling
There's Something in the Water: San Diego Is Once Again a Hot Market for National Law Firms
6 minute readWhat Happens When You Go Viral? How a Law Firm Associate Manages Her Social Media Success
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Lawyer’s Resolutions: Focusing on 2025
- 2Houston Judge Exonerated on Appeal, Public Reprimand Vacated
- 3Bar Report - Dec. 30
- 4Employment Law Developments to Expect From the Second Trump Administration
- 5How I Made Law Firm Leadership: 'It’s Imperative That You Never Stop Learning,' Says Ian Ribald of Ballard Spahr
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