The Lateral Lawyer® Process Explained: Switching Firms at the Partner Level 19 Jan 2021, 10:30 pm

With over 1,700 “Big Law” partners switching firms even during the pandemic year of 2020, and lateral acquisitions still a key driver of firm revenue growth, lateral movement remains a prominent feature of the legal industry landscape.   Innumerable factors impel lateral moves—from the desire for a better practice “fit,” to superior cross-marketing opportunities, to frustration with aspects of one’s current firm or partners.   But just as intimate familiarity with a jurisdiction’s rules of civil procedure will advantage the savvy advocate, familiarity with the Lateral Lawyer® Process gives the lateral candidate a leg up in dealing with other law firms.  That advantage applies both during the initial phase of attracting and maintaining the interest of prospective firms, and also during the negotiating phase leading to an actual lateral move.

Lateral Lawyer® Group conceptualizes the Lateral Lawyer Process as follows:

Consultation

The first phase of the Lateral Lawyer Process is Consultation.  Obviously, some lateral candidates contact prospective law firms directly, and partners occasionally reach out to friends at other firms to initiate a dialogue.  However, in the typical case a prospective lateral partner will work closely with a recruiter to develop a compelling story and business plan—i.e., a description of one’s practice to date, and substantial information about one’s potential to build on that practice, especially if working from a superior platform than the current firm.

Among other benefits of consulting with a recruiter, doing so will help a partner articulate and sharpen his or her answer to the question, “Why are you looking to leave your current firm?”  (An ideal answer:  “I wasn’t looking, but I was persuaded by my recruiter that a conversation with you might illumen some possibilities I hadn’t been considering”).  In addition, recruiters help partners examine their practice metrics and prepare to speak knowledgeably about such factors as rates, number of hours worked per year, team economics, and likelihood that clients will follow to a new firm.  In many cases, recruiters also vet and provide informed feedback on a partner’s business plan—increasingly important as firms become more assiduous in performing their due diligence on prospective partners.

Exploration

During Exploration, the second phase of the Lateral Lawyer Process, the recruiter and prospective lateral partner interactively examine the potential “market” for the candidate’s practice.  This includes not only understanding other firms’ desire for the prospect’s skills and abilities, but also the attractiveness of his or her all-important client base to them.  Any number of reasons may render one firm more or less likely to be intrigued by—or intriguing to—a prospective lateral candidate:  the existence of cross-marketing opportunities or, conversely, potential conflicts, may drive the decision of which firms to include or exclude from the universe of active possibilities.

In practical terms, the Exploration phase comprises substantial research, both from public and private sources, about specific practices at other firms.  It may also include no-names conversations with firm representatives about their interest to see candidates meeting particular criteria, or having particular skills or cross-marketing potential.  The end product of this Exploration phase is a list of firms to approach to initiate a lateral dialogue.

Evaluation

The most time-consuming—and, to many candidates, the most “intense”—phase of the Lateral Lawyer Process is Evaluation.  During this phase, law firms perform their due diligence on candidates, primarily through so-called “lateral partner questionnaires” (LPQs) and by interviews.  Note that the Evaluation phase is definitively not the time for lateral candidates to perform their own due diligence on the prospective firms.  Except to the extent that lateral candidates can glean information and formulate questions to ask the firm after an offer is extended, the due diligence performed during the Evaluation phase is by the firms alone.  A candidate who asks the “tough” questions too soon—e.g., about compensation, recent departures, or anything even remotely uncomfortable—may be perceived as presumptuous at best and adversarial at worst.

LPQs typically require a 3-year look-back at billings and collections from all “portable” clients, as well as a history of total hours billed, annual compensation, and rates.  Some firms also request a narrative of ones practice to date and a business plan.  Because the often-voluminous responses represent a substantial investment of time to develop, lateral partner candidates sometimes tarry in furnishing the requested practice metrics.  Accordingly, professional recruiters, who understand from experience that time kills all deals, may be particularly helpful in helping lateral partner candidates to complete their LPQs. 

In addition to requesting the written information outlined above, law firms typically conduct several rounds of interviews with lateral partner candidates as part of the Evaluation phase.  While a full consideration of how to succeed in the interview process is beyond the scope of this article, successful candidate will typically have made certain to cover the following five topics during interviews:

• Self:  what makes you a good lawyer, advocate, and colleague?
• Practice:  who are your clients, what are their needs for legal services, and what, if any, are the cross-selling opportunities that they present?
• Business development process:  essentially, an answer to the question, “How do you get your clients?”
• Leadership:  what is your track record and potential for leading a practice?
• Fit:  an opportunity to discuss why you and your practice belong at the prospective firm—e.g., are there identifiable cross-selling opportunities, geographic or practice overlap, and complimentary client bases

Inasmuch as partner candidates are being assessed largely on their ability to generate revenue for the firm, it is particularly important to speak to business development issues during lateral interviews.

Negotiation

Unless one has made the mistake of speaking with only one firm—or with only one firm at a time—a market for a candidate naturally develops among competing firms during the Negotiation phase.  Here, at the end of the Lateral Lawyer Process, it is finally appropriate to ask the “tough” questions of prospective firms, which would have appeared presumptuous to pose earlier, when it was still uncertain whether an offer would be extended.

There are no hard and fast rules about offers:  firms usually have significant discretion as to compensation (both initial and ongoing), equity versus non-equity status, required billing rates, and the like.  Accordingly, there may be some back-and-forth between the firm and the candidate (typically through the intermediation of a recruiter) to hammer out initial compensation details, even where an understanding of the general contours of a prospective offer may have developed earlier in the recruiting process.  It is, however, axiomatic that the more offers a candidate receives, the more attractive those offers are likely to be.  This is why recruiters seek to create a market among competing firms—something that individual candidates working without a recruiter often lack the experience or expertise to cultivate.

Conclusion

The prospective lateral candidate is well-advised to understand the Lateral Lawyer Process prior to seeking to move his or her practice to a different firm.  That process, consisting of four distinct phases, gives structure to lateral movement and is well-understood by the firm representatives who are ones interlocutors.  To create a market for one’s practice—i.e., a situation in which multiple offers are received simultaneously—prospective lateral partners will likely find a recruiter’s guidance invaluable.

For more information about making a lateral move at the partner level, call Lateral Lawyer Group at 201-LATERAL (201-528-3725)

The post The Lateral Lawyer® Process Explained: Switching Firms at the Partner Level appeared first on Lateral Lawyer Group.

Partner Compensation Always An Issue, But Rarely ‘The’ Issue 24 Nov 2020, 7:51 pm

Lawyers, particularly those at AmLaw 100 or UK Magic Circle firms, are generally very well-compensated professionals.  Although attorneys at these law firms rarely take home quite as much as their peers in banking, lawyer compensation is rarely the chief complaint of lateral partners seeking to switch firms.  Rather, primary motivations typically include the desire to avoid client conflicts, and the need to find a different platform—i.e., a firm that is better able than one’s current firm to furnish cross-selling opportunities or to support the specific practice areas needed by one’s existing or potential client base.  Nevertheless, lawyer salary discussions are an important part of the lateral recruiting process and need to be understood in the context of that process.

The first thing that lateral partner candidates need to remember is that lawyer salary discussions usually happen at the end of the lateral recruiting process, only after all of the parties have gotten comfortable that a deal may be possible.  While it may seem efficient to “cut to the chase” and discuss lawyer compensation early in the recruiting process, such haste on the part of candidates may sour the firm on further discussions.  On one level, it’s a matter of tradition and taste:  lawyer salary discussions happen at the end of the process; that’s simply the way it’s done.  But on a deeper level, attorney compensation discussions represent the end of a process by which the lateral partner and the firm have already come to a meeting of minds on the issue of whether the lateral partner would be a good fit for the firm, and vice versa.  Obviously, compensation is an important part of that equation, but it is a variable that is solved for with relative ease; the hard part is determining whether the lateral partner and his or her law practice belong at the firm in the first place.

The post Partner Compensation Always An Issue, But Rarely ‘The’ Issue appeared first on Lateral Lawyer Group.

How to Choose a Legal Recruiter 5 Nov 2018, 12:47 pm

There is no shortage of legal recruiters.  Many firm partners report annoyance at too-frequent calls from headhunters, some who demonstrate only passing familiarity with the practices for which they purport to be recruiting. Accordingly, law firm partners are truly in the catbird seat when it comes to choosing a recruiter.  The following are a few best practices that law firm partners should follow in selecting a professional recruiter to represent them in establishing relationships with prospective firms.

Be picky.  Not all legal recruiters are created equal, and there is a vast difference between the best and the not-so-best.  Just as one would perform due diligence before choosing a doctor, accountant, real estate agent, or any professional counselor, law firm partners should perform due diligence on recruiters too. Obviously, the fact that one may be considering a change is a sensitive matter, so most partners are quite reticent about asking their peers for recommendations.  Nevertheless, it is appropriate to ask for references, explore LinkedIn profiles, check search engine results, and make discreet inquiry of friends who may have used recruiters to change firms. A few suggestions of where to start:

• Does the recruiter have substantial experience in the recruiting business?
• Has the recruiter actually placed partners, and if so, to which firm(s)?
• Does the recruiter have any testimonials posted, and if so, what do they say about his or her experience, responsiveness, and ease of working with? (Of course, people post only the most glowing of recommendations, so take them all with a grain of salt)

Look for relevant experience.  Some recruiters have been in the recruiting business for their entire professional careers, some have backgrounds in legal practice, and some have experience in human resources and personnel management.  Each of these backgrounds can be relevant, but one issue trumps all the others:  Has this recruiter made other partner-level placements, and if so, how many and how recently?  There is simply no substitute for real-world, recent experience placing partner-level candidates, ideally in the same firms or types of firms that the candidate is most interested to discover.

Determine specialization.  Some recruiters specialize by geography, some by practice area, and some not at all.  While I do not have a strong opinion on whether specialization by geography or practice area is particularly important, I do have a strong opinion on the difference between recruiters who place partners and those who place associates:  make sure that you are dealing with someone experienced in your own practice level, because the markets for associates and for partners are completely different.  This is not to say that firms never seek partners to fill in gaps in their own practice coverage, or that they never specifically seek to build bench strength in particular areas; rather, it is simply uncommon for firms to need partner level candidates the same way they need to find experienced associates to service existing clients’ needs.  Accordingly, partner candidates should make sure that they work with recruiters who truly understand the partner-level lateral lawyer process, and whose specialization is in closing partner-level deals.

Don’t be promiscuous!  Just as there are reputational (and other) downsides to social promiscuity, dealing with too many recruiters can harm your professional career.  This is not to say that one should avoid speaking with—and learning from—numerous recruiters while still in the initial phase of considering whether to make a move.  Rather, once a partner has made a decision to explore opportunities at other law firms, he or she should do so through a single point of contact.  Several factors militate in favor of this approach:

• Posture.  Nothing undercuts your posture as “amenable, but not looking” more than having your resume submitted by more than one recruiter:  virtual proof-positive that you are, indeed, actively looking
• Logistics.  When interviewing with multiple firms, someone needs to handle the schedule-juggling, and unless you want that to be you, have a single recruiter handle those issues on your behalf
• Mutual assistance.  If you give a single recruiter your full attention, he or she will be far more likely to reciprocate

Finally, candidates need to ask themselves:  what is the potential benefit of dealing with more than one recruiter?  I posit that there is none.

Inasmuch as partner-level candidates drive the recruiting process, it is not as if some recruiters have special access to information on unadvertised openings.  (This is an arguable benefit that certain associate-level recruiters may be able to leverage).  On the contrary, firms are generally quite transparent about their willingness—indeed, their eagerness—to see good partner-level candidates, so it is quite rare, if not outright unheard of, for legal recruiters to have some kind of unique access to law firms and firm decision-makers.  Thus, partner-level candidates are well-advised to choose a single recruiter, and, absent a compelling reason to terminate the relationship with that person, pursue all potential introductions through that single source.

Probe for knowledge of the recruiting process, but do not expect complete familiarity with every detail of every law firm.  One common mistake that partner-level candidates often make when choosing a recruiter is to believe that recruiters must (or even can) have comprehensive knowledge of every prospective firm.  Such knowledge may seem valuable—after all, a recruiter who drops names, statistics, and other information may seem to have the inside track on making a successful placement.  However, as I always inform my candidates, making a successful placement depends more on knowledge of the recruiting process than on knowledge of particular law firms—which, it turns out, are almost always in a state of flux.

What a partner-level candidate most needs to know about a prospective new firm is not even knowable ab initio:  how well his or her practice would mesh with a new firm’s practice, culture, and client base.  Learning about these factors depends, more than anything else, on getting to know firms during the recruiting process, not on any one recruiter’s purported expertise on particular firms.  Furthermore, one may well wonder whether a recruiter who promotes particular firms to the exclusion of others actually short-changes the candidates with whom he or she works, by seeking to make a rapid placement at firms with which he or she happens to be most familiar, as opposed to working with the candidate to identify, contact, and shepherd the candidacy through the process at firms where the candidate is most likely to thrive regardless of initial familiarity.

Work with people who prioritize your interests, not their own.  Competent recruiters get deals done; exemplary recruiters make great matches between candidates and the law firms where those candidates’ practices are most likely to thrive.  Except where time is truly of the essence, recruiters who brag about the speed with which they accomplish placements are really just boasting of their prowess at earning fees.  Rather than work with someone whose goal is to maximize the speed and number of placements they can make, thoughtful potential candidates should feel out recruiters for their generosity with time, attention, and advice.  Find a “giver” recruiter, one who is forthcoming with information but not over-eager to pour out details.

Find a patient, thoughtful, insightful listener.  Any recruiter can talk a good line, but great recruiters are model listeners—they solicit as much information as possible about your practice, history, needs, personal and work values, and interests in order to form a complete understanding of the skills, track record, and client base that you bring to the table.  When choosing a recruiter, find one who is as good a listener as any trial lawyer interviewing a potential witness—e.g., does he or she spend more time speaking, or actively listening to your thoughts?  Does he or she grasp the nuances of what you are trying to communicate about your practice needs and goals?  Does he or she understand your priorities?  Spend the time to get to know whether the recruiter appreciates your situation, and only proceed with someone who is willing to invest time and energy to listen to you.

Work only with someone who is relationship-oriented, not transaction-oriented.  This advice applies more to law firms than to law firm partners, but both parties should work only with recruiters who prioritize relationships over transactions.  With respect to law firms—and this advice is aimed principally toward hiring committee members and recruiting staff—a recruiter who makes the time to develop a genuine hand-in-glove relationship will be more likely to present excellent candidates over time than one whose approach is simply to make a placement and then move on to the next opportunity.  Candidates should likewise probe recruiters for their skills cultivating and sustaining relationships.

The post How to Choose a Legal Recruiter appeared first on Lateral Lawyer Group.

Three Rookie Mistakes That Can Cost You A Lateral Offer 9 Oct 2018, 8:50 pm

Ask any recruiter about the most frustrating part of his or her job, and you’ll likely receive a response along the lines of: “Keeping candidates from tripping over their own feet.”

To be sure, many law firm partners are smooth, well-prepared, and wary of the most common recruiting pitfalls. Yet many–perhaps a full half of them–fall into predictable traps that recruiters have seen dozens of times before.

So, what are those pitfalls? In many cases, a candidate lets ego and hubris get in their way: by thinking that they know more about the partner recruiting process than do their recruiters, candidates often ignore critical advice. So here is some experience-based advice about common, avoidable lateral recruiting pitfalls. Ignore it at your own peril.

Rookie Mistake #1:  Indiscretion

Usually, recruiting faux pas result from candidates’ disregarding sound recruiter advice: such as the fundamental admonition to Speak No Evil about current (and soon-to-be-former) colleagues. Nothing is a greater turn-off to representatives of a prospective firm than a lawyer who speaks ill of his or her current firm.

In the first place, saying negative things about one’s current firm simply shows bad manners: even when there is nothing nice to say about one’s actual situation, the polite approach is to say nothing it all. Second, badmouthing anyone—especially one’s own colleagues—is a behavior that probably says more about the candidate than about anyone he or she chooses to discuss. Finally, a candidate who disparages any firm naturally raises the possibility, in the minds of his or her interviewers, that their firm could eventually suffer the same treatment. Accordingly, a well-prepared candidate knows how to answer the question, “Why are you looking to make a move?” with a reply that shines a positive light on his or her own candidacy, without shining a negative light on anyone else.

Other forms of indiscretion are equally distasteful to prospective firms. For example, publicly discussing that one is interviewing with other firms could signal a disregard for confidentiality generally.

Telephone and email communications should likewise be handled confidentially. For example, an attorney in the process of exploring possibilities with other firms can raise suspicions among current colleagues (including secretaries/assistants) by spending too much time on unaccounted-for calls with the office door closed. And of course, email communications via firm computers or servers should never be considered truly private; even non-firm email accounts (e.g, Yahoo!, Hotmail, or Gmail), should only be accessed from personal, non-firm, computers or mobile devices. Unsurprisingly, some recruiters encourage candidates to minimize communications with them during regular business hours, and typically spend substantial time working after-hours and on weekends, to avoid raising eyebrows.

Rookie Mistake #2:  Playing Coy or Hard-to-Get

Not all recruiting mistakes result from being indiscreet. On the contrary, another prominent pitfall is to appear a bit too discreet, to the point of appearing disinterested.

Lateral lawyers who play coy or hard-to-get, either with prospective firm representatives, or with their own recruiters, do themselves a severe disservice that could cost them offers. Firms that sense that a candidate is unenthusiastic about the prospect of moving, simply turn their attention elsewhere. (Attractive firms have no shortage of candidates applying for consideration—indeed, an initial challenge most firms face is triage, in which enthusiasm is an important criterion for advancement through the process). This is not surprising: interviewing and assessing lateral candidates is time- and resource intensive, so firms try to avoid squandering scarce attention on candidates perceived as unlikely to accept an offer. Lateral lawyer candidates are therefore well-advised to be forthcoming with prospective firms.

A specific type of coyness that deserves attention is what I call the I-Won’t-Tell-You-I-Like-You-Until-You-Tell-Me-You-Like-Me-First Gambit. In this scenario, an attorney refuses to give permission to refer his or her name to a prospective firm, until the recruiter first ascertains that the firm would be interested in a candidate with his or her characteristics—i.e., tenure, practice type, size of book of business, annual billings, etc. Nothing is to be gained from such reticence, as the answer is virtually always the same: “Sure, we’re interested . . . if it’s the right person.” As the lateral recruiting process unfolds, this sort of reticence often looks like needless posturing—not a good impression to leave with prospective colleagues.

Rookie Mistake #3:  Delay

Delay is another candidacy-killer. And the two periods of the lateral lawyer process most subject to delay are:

• Completing due diligence forms, or Lateral Partner Questionnaires (“LPQs”)
• Scheduling interviews

Firms are quite sensitive to the amount of time it takes a lateral candidate to complete the LPQ because without the basic information that that document furnishes about clients and historical billings and collections, there is really no rational way to decide whether to extend an offer. Nevertheless, firms understand that such information may be difficult to acquire or reconstruct, and burdensome to prepare. Accordingly, Lateral Lawyer Group recommends that ALL lawyers regularly request, and keep copies of, their annual time/billing records, to facilitate a lateral move if and when required. Any number or reasons may be cited, particularly the desire to track personal business development and billings/collections goals. Likewise, interviews should be scheduled and conducted as soon as possible after a lateral lawyer candidate is referred to a prospective firm. Momentum counts.

Bonus Pitfall: Foregoing Creation of a Market for Your Practice and Services

Another important mistake candidates make is to approach firms serially, rather than simultaneously, and thereby forego the benefits of creating a competitive “market” among firms. It is unclear why candidates think this benefits them, but it is a common error. After all, if you do not approach Firm B until well after approaching Firm A, by the time Firm B makes an offer, Firm A’s offer may have grown stale. And, in any case, Firm A would perceive, correctly, that its offer was being “shopped” and Firm B would likewise perceive that it was considered a second choice. (Firm C is right out). In our experience, candidates hem and haw about why they wish to proceed in this fashion, and we have reached the conclusion that the true reason is their own ambivalence about making a lateral move at all. Thus, some recruiters hesitate to work with candidates who decline to approach several attractive target firms at once: they are less likely to receive offers; they are less likely to accept offers; and the offers they receive are axiomatically less attractive than if they had created a market among several competing firms at once.

The post Three Rookie Mistakes That Can Cost You A Lateral Offer appeared first on Lateral Lawyer Group.

Making the Most of Your Relationship with a Recruiter 9 Oct 2018, 8:48 pm

For some attorneys, phone calls from legal recruiters are an occasional annoyance; for others, such calls are a welcome relief—even a potential lifeline. A lawyer’s attitude toward calls from recruiters often varies over time, depending on whether he or she is satisfied at a current firm, or whether a “change of venue” might represent a career improvement. But based on my 15 years as a legal recruiter—and over 25 as a member of the bar—I have one message to anyone who receives recruiting calls: always take them, or return them promptly. Doing so can only help you.

The primary benefit of taking a recruiter’s call is the opportunity to develop a relationship with someone whose business is to advance your career. Such a relationship can benefit you immediately, or over time, but in no view of the situation can the relationship harm you.

At their best, recruiters can become your trusted industry- and career advisors, whose sound counsel is informed both by experience facilitating lateral moves, and by specific knowledge of the many firms with which they regularly communicate. At worst, a conversation with a recruiter represents the loss of about 5 minutes—the amount of time I estimate it takes for a lawyer to determine whether a recruiter has anything to offer, in terms of counsel or of information. Accordingly, most recruiting calls can be quite brief, inasmuch as all you really need to do at first is a bit of sifting, to determine whether the person on the other end of the phone is worth getting to know. But even brief conversations with not-particularly-timely callers can help in the long term: the more you reveal about the potential “ideal” opportunities that could interest you, the more likely you make it that a recruiter thinks of you should an appropriate situation arise.

Recruiters’ services are almost universally free to the candidate; the acquiring law firm typically pays the placement fee. The best way to leverage this free service is to develop a personal relationship with an experienced, thoughtful, well-informed recruiter over the course of time. In my own practice, for example, I have relationships with candidates (and potential candidates) that go back over decades—and am therefore well-positioned to share my insights with lawyers as to which firm or firms might furnish superior opportunities compared with their current firms. (Any competent and experienced recruiter will be able to say the same thing). Even if you are not currently contemplating switching firms, think of recruiting discussions as an opportunity to perform basic “career prophylaxis”—just as you might visit the dentist for a semi-annual tooth cleaning before a cavity or toothache develops.

Developing a personal relationship with a recruiter has the following tangible benefits:

• Real-time intelligence on practices at other firms that may interest you. Recruiters make it our business to know what’s going on in the legal industry. Even if we don’t happen to know every single new development off the top of our heads, we are well positioned to do research—i.e., have discreet conversations—to find out the information that can affect your career decisions, and answer any specific questions you may have about particular firms, practices, and lawyers
• Relevant, actionable, career advice based on our day-to-day experience with attorneys and law firms. While I often refer potential candidates to professional career coaches for help with client/practice development and marketing, I do an awful lot of candidate coaching myself. And my advice is almost always focused on the one thing that usually matters most both in terms of compensation and career satisfaction: developing a solid book of portable business. That is the currency of the lateral attorney marketplace, with which I deal every day. Profit from my legwork
• Attention when attractive opportunities arise. When recruiters are asked to find candidates for particular openings or opportunities, they typically turn first to their rolodex, then to their database, then to the Internet. In other words, if they can fill a job from their rolodex, there will be little need to turn to other sources of candidates. The lesson is simple: if you want to learn about opportunities first, it pays to be in a recruiter’s rolodex.
• Personalized service based on deep understanding of your wants and needs. While a recruiter’s actual clients are the law firms, lateral recruiting is driven, more than anything else, by the willingness—at times, eagerness—of lawyers to explore options. The better a recruiter knows you and your practice, and the more closely he or she has watched both develop over time, the more able that recruiter will be to advise you which opportunities might be most attractive to you.

The most effective legal recruiters cultivate long-term relationships with both law firms and lawyers, and lawyers are well-advised to take advantage of our service, which we provide to them free of charge. Apart from the time it may take to touch base occasionally with a recruiter, there is really no discernible downside to doing so; having those conversations can only help you if and when the time comes to explore options.

The post Making the Most of Your Relationship with a Recruiter appeared first on Lateral Lawyer Group.

Lateral Partner Interviews: 5 Topics To Mention (And 3 To Avoid) If You Want An Offer 9 Oct 2018, 8:47 pm

Lateral recruiting at the partner level is a complex process: from the initial contact with a prospective firm, through the exchange of information on clients and finances, interviews with other partners, and formulation of an offer, can take anywhere from a month to over a year. At the core of the process are actual meetings with one’s prospective colleagues at other firms—i.e., the lateral partner interviews. To help partner-level lateral candidates prepare for interviews with their hoped-for future colleagues, here are some key pointers that I have developed during more than a decade as a partner-level legal recruiter.

If you are a partner considering switching as a lateral to another law firm—or if you are already in the process of doing so—you should always keep in mind the ultimate goal: to receive an offer. Helping your interviewers understand the following aspects of yourself and your practice will make it easier for them to extend an offer to you. You may want to make a mental checklist to be certain to address each of these top 5 issues:

• Yourself. What are some of the personal traits that make you a good advocate? (You might mention your meticulousness, thoroughness, strategic thinking, and understanding of people’s motivations and interests, etc.). What makes you a good team player? (Give examples of your personal concern for colleagues—including associates and staff). If appropriate in the context of an interview, mention some of the more notable cases or matters you have handled, and how they have shaped your professional development as a lawyer.
• Your practice. If the size of your book, billing rate, and typical annual billings are impressive, it is beneficial to reiterate such information during interviews. Likewise, mention any of the more important (or impressive) clients on your roster, explaining what you do for them as well as the strength of your relationships with their key decision makers—i.e., the people who actually decide on which firms to hire as outside counsel. Your interviewers will likely already know a fair bit about the type of legal work you do, as this is usually available from the biography on your current firm’s website and from a quick Internet search. Just in case you are interviewed by someone who is not as thoroughly prepared as they should be—an annoyingly common occurrence, to judge from my candidates’ feedback—I recommend having a thumbnail overview of your expertise ready at the tip of your tongue. (At the very least, this will spare your interviewer some embarrassment, while giving you a chance to toot your own horn). Finally, describing your practice furnishes a good occasion to explain how likely it is that your most important clients will follow you to a new firm. Being able to articulate all of these things will assist interviewers to understand what you do, for whom you do it, and how you would build on that practice at a different firm.
• Your business development process. This point is probably the most important, and most neglected, topic of discussion at interviews. After all, in most cases, a lateral partner candidate is being assessed primarily on his or her ability to contribute to firm profitability—of which business development acumen (i.e., new revenue generation) is a principal driver. Accordingly, a key question firms ask is: “How do you source new business?” A compelling answer to this question could push an otherwise marginal candidacy into positive territory; a flabby response could doom it. Compelling answers illuminate the following issues for your interviewers:
  • Strategy: Describe, at a high level, your business development strategy. That is, describe how you think about approaching the overall potential market for your own personal legal services—and for your firm’s other legal services. For example, how do you divide the potential market into segments you can approach? Are there particular industries or types of organizations that are good candidates for becoming clients? Which types of lawyers and law firms do you consider to be your primary competitors and how, if at all, do you distinguish yourself from them when you pitch business?
  • Replicability: Here are two compelling statements: “I have a thought-out process or method, and it consists of [fill in the blank]”; and “I could do this stuff over and over all day long with my eyes closed”
  • Variety: “I develop business in a number of ways, including speaking, writing, making and receiving referrals, promoting my current firm, performing pro bono, and so on.” Be able to explain how several of your recent matters came through the door, selecting examples that demonstrate the use of various business development methods.
• Your leadership. Speak to how you have taken a leadership role in your firm or department. Areas where you might have demonstrated leadership include recruiting, associate development, firm administration, expense reduction, and syndicating best practices for business development. Highlight specific accomplishments: “As a member of the new associate recruiting committee, I reorganized our summer associate program” or “I initiated my firm’s transactional department newsletter, which is now distributed online to hundreds of actual and potential clients and has contributed to generating over $5 million in new business over the past year.”
• Thoughts on why the firm might be a good fit for you and your practice. Emphasize this point to demonstrate how you have already thought through the reasons why you could see yourself at the prospective firm. Focus, for example, on complementary practices, cross-selling opportunities, the firm’s reputation in specific areas, partners with whom you anticipate collaborating, geographic coverage, and other aspects of a firm that would make it a natural fit for you. Demonstrating your knowledge of the firm can help your interviewers envision you as their partner already, and get them thinking about what it would be like to have you as a colleague rather than as a competitor.

Note how each of these points is designed to move the discussion of a potential affiliation with the firm forward toward an actual offer. In particular, these 5 topics naturally lend themselves to positive thoughts about how beneficial it could be for a partner-level interviewee to join the firm. Overall, the idea is to get the parties thinking productively—figuratively sitting on the same side of the table in order to think through the possibilities together.

Lateral recruiting at the partner level, like lateral recruiting at the associate level, is a process with distinct phases, and the interview phase furnishes, in equal measure, an opportunity to shine and an opportunity to flop. As with most aspects of being a lawyer, there is no substitute for thorough preparation, so whether you are currently a candidate or just considering becoming a candidate, knowing what to say during interviews can only improve the chance of receiving an attractive offer.

These 5 talking points should be easy enough to keep in mind, but if you think you might have difficulty remembering them, make a written note and consult it briefly before each interview. If you are working with a recruiter, rehearse discussing these points before you interview, and make sure to give a download as soon as practical after you finish at each firm. A post-mortem on each set of interviews will help you prepare for the next round, either at the same prospective firm, or at the next one on your list.

As noted above, a poor performance during interviews can imperil an otherwise excellent candidacy. Here are 3 top pitfalls to avoid when interviewing:

• Saying the wrong things. Examples include asking about issues embarrassing to the firm—recent notable departures, malpractice claims and the like. Similarly, criticizing your current firm is strictly verboten: not only does it undercut your posture as someone who would be perfectly contented to stay where you are; it also raises questions about your discretion. After all, if you are willing to criticize your current firm and partners, your interviewers may well wonder whether you would be similarly inclined to criticize their firm if you were given the opportunity to join it. And of course, never be the one to raise the subject of compensation, which is a major red flag. If your interviewers bring up the issue, it is appropriate to discuss money in response to their questions, but the real time for that conversation is in the context of negotiating an actual offer—a conversation that is usually better done through a recruiter, whose participation will preserve your positive relationship with the firm even while he or she negotiates in a hard-nosed manner on your behalf.
• Failing to say the right things. Firms expect you to address issues that are critical for them to make an informed decision about your candidacy. Thus, if you neglect to mention cross-selling opportunities presented by your client base, the partners you are talking to may think that such opportunities are nonexistent or insignificant.
• Not being enthusiastic enough.  There’s no need to gush over the possibility of joining a firm, but firms are made of people and people always like to know that they are wanted. It is important to convey a sense of enthusiasm about joining every firm you talk to; even if you do not ultimately accept the firm’s offer, it is far better to have that offer in hand. In other words, interviews are no time to demonstrate reticence; rather, they are an opportunity to show excitement about new professional possibilities.

Interviewing for a partner-level position is not the same as interviewing for an associate position. From the firm’s perspective the stakes are much higher, both in terms of dollars and in terms of disruption to client relations and firm administration if the lateral acquisition does not work out. Accordingly, interviews are a critical factor as firms weigh a prospective lateral partner’s candidacy. Keeping in mind the talking points presented in this brief article will make you a better-prepared candidate, and the better prepared the candidate is, the greater the likelihood of an attractive offer.

The post Lateral Partner Interviews: 5 Topics To Mention (And 3 To Avoid) If You Want An Offer appeared first on Lateral Lawyer Group.

Recruiters’ Top Pet Peeves—And How They Can Harm Your Career 9 Oct 2018, 8:41 pm

It is common enough for lawyers to complain about recruiters—that too many of them call too frequently when times are good, that they are too slow to respond when times are bad, and that they fail to follow up when follow-up might be appreciated. By the same token, we recruiters have gripes about the candidates we work with.

As a legal recruiter with over a decade of experience placing lawyer candidates at top firms, here is my list of the pet peeves that either harm a candidate’s candidacy or waste our time, or both. The list is short by design, in keeping with the “80/20 Rule” that the top few problems account for the vast bulk of the trouble that candidates sometimes get themselves into when they fail to behave toward recruiters and potential new law firms in ways that are always candid, professional, and honest.

1.  Candor: Candidates Who Fail to Communicate the Whole Story

Every candidate has a story to tell about why he or she is seeking—or is simply amenable to considering—switching firms. In the best of cases, the story goes something like this: “I’m doing very well at my current firm, and am happy here; however, I believe that my already-successful practice would thrive even better at Dunning, Sponget & Leach.”

An equally common refrain is that, for one reason or another, things aren’t quite working out at one’s current firm. If this is the case, it is a mistake to imagine that a prospective firm will not learn the truth during the course of interviews or other aspects of what have become firms’ thorough—if routine—due diligence inquiries.

For this reason, attempting to hide any issues from a firm could be a major black mark against your candidacy. By contrast, identifying, and candidly explaining, such issues early in the process can make them non-issues, particularly if they are specific to your current firm, and do not reflect on your professionalism. (Non-issues include, for example, difficulties that one’s current firm faces, and not, by contrast, a malpractice claim against one personally, or being a defendant in a harassment suit). The touchstone inquiry is as follows: Would the prospective firm consider this information relevant in making a rational hiring decision about me? If the answer is “Yes” then all more the more reason to share the information with your recruiter, and to do so early in the lateral recruiting process. This is similar to the advice that you probably give to clients facing the prospect of a hostile cross-examination.

In a business where credibility is our primary asset, we legal recruiters have the incentive and the experience to shine the best possible light on our candidates, imperfections and all. We spend our days (and, not infrequently, nights), speaking with law firm representatives about candidates—both extolling their virtues, and recognizing (without highlighting), their shortcomings. What worse way to undercut the positive impression that a recruiter creates, than to surprise your target firm(s) with an item of unflattering information that was virtually sure to come to light in any event sooner or later? Again, you likely give similar advice to your own clients all the time.

In the worst case, the late revelation of unflattering information will torpedo your candidacy immediately, if the prospective firm deems you to have been dishonest or disingenuous in neglecting to mention it. At best, failing to mention a blemish early in the process raises questions about your—and, potentially, my—candor. Enough said.

2.  Professionalism: Candidates Who Fail to Respect Others’ Time

Just as in Abraham Lincoln’s formulation, “A lawyer’s time and advice are his stock in trade,” so too with recruiters. We value our time no less than do practicing attorneys, and although our services are typically free to them, that does not mean that our time is less precious to us. We all make tradeoffs, and the most cooperative candidates receive the most–and the most sympathetic–attention.

Of equal importance, our clients—your prospective new law firms—value their attorneys’ time as well, and the hours spent attending to your candidacy might instead be spent billing clients for valuable work. So when you want to get, and keep, our and our law firm clients’ attention, respect our time.

A few practical examples:

• Keep the appointments you set. I can’t count the number of times I’ve been “stood up” without explanation by candidates who specifically asked me to phone them at specific times, often at very odd hours due to time zone differences. Even worse are the occasions on which I have received puzzled phone calls from law firm representatives, inquiring as to the status of candidates who simply never showed up for scheduled interviews
• Return calls promptly, especially when you know that a prospective new firm is awaiting information from you. It’s a good rule always to return client phone calls within 24 hours. When your own career path is in the balance, this guideline is even more important. So, when you need to cancel a scheduled call or meeting, just do the right thing: let us know, by phone, email, text, or carrier pigeon, as soon as you become aware that you will need to cancel an appointment, even if at the last moment
• If you’re just “kicking the tires,” don’t pretend that you’re a real candidate. Remember: the time may come when you are what they call in the sales business a “real live prospect.” And then your reputation will precede you.

3.  Honesty: Candidates Who Attempt to Circumvent Their Recruiters

From time to time, every recruiter runs into the same situation: a candidate whom they had cultivated, educated, and introduced to another firm, seeks to cut the recruiter—and the recruiter’s fee—out of the deal. Nothing is more annoying to people in my profession, or more perilous for your candidacy. After all, the law firm with which such an unwholesome arrangement would need to be made is likely the recruiter’s long-term client, with deep relationships going back years, and with other candidates in the pipeline. So, put yourself in the position of a hiring partner at one of my client firms: would he or she view such behavior as reflecting your frugal stewardship of firm resources? Perhaps. But it’s just as likely that you would be viewed as a greedy, untrustworthy SOB who demonstrates little compunction about dealing sharply with a close business associate—certainly someone not likely to make a good colleague.

Conclusion

Good legal recruiters are as valuable to lateral lawyer candidates as good lawyers are to other business people, and the recruiter-attorney relationship works best when candidates demonstrate candor, professionalism and honesty in their every interaction. Doing so is not just the right thing to do; it’s also smart for your career.

The post Recruiters’ Top Pet Peeves—And How They Can Harm Your Career appeared first on Lateral Lawyer Group.

Out-recruiting the Competition to Win the War for Legal Talent 9 Oct 2018, 8:38 pm

Law firms’ fortunes rise and fall with the quality of their partners. By “quality” I do not mean partners’ brilliance, charisma, or ability to win cases and close deals. Rather, I define quality as members of law firm hiring committees do: a partner’s ability to bring in business.

The fierce competition for high-quality, profit-generating legal talent has led to what some call the “Lateral Wars,” as firms seek to entice partners from other firms to switch. In these Lateral Wars, each candidate—or, rather, each candidate’s projected stream of fees—is a prize to be won, and each candidacy is a battle, often among several competing firms.

Law firm leaders often ask, “What can we do to win the battle for attractive laterals?” Here are several principles that I share with them:

Make recruiting a priority

Building the partnership bench should rank high on firm management’s agenda—on par with such other strategic HR issues as succession planning and compensation. Internal promotion of associates is one way to build the partnership; lateral recruiting is the other. Accordingly, senior management should devote substantial time, attention, and—as needed—resources to lateral recruiting efforts.

For example, senior management needs to be heavily involved in efforts to recruit partner-level talent. Whether by being available to interview and woo candidates, or by protecting blocks of hours for in-depth hiring discussions, law firm partners need to devote time and effort to adding partner-level colleagues. Often, this is not the case—as when partners push even some substantive conversations to their in-house recruiting staff, rather than taking the time to communicate with partner-level candidates or their recruiters directly. However, in my decade of experience as a partner-level legal recruiter, I have observed that the firms most successful at attracting partner-level talent are the ones that interpose the fewest barriers between candidates, outside recruiters, and current firm partners. Particularly where multiple firms compete for the same candidate, senior management must be available and responsive in answering that candidate’s queries and understanding his or her concerns. After all, a major motivation for candidates to explore their options in the first place is the often-stated complaint that their current firm has “too much bureaucracy.” Thus, the more direct access to partner-level firm representatives, the better.

Establish effective recruiting processes by measuring results

Virtually every major law firm has some partner-level recruiting process in place. But how effective or efficient are such processes? Most firms have no idea; they don’t measure results systematically. Employing a basic tracking system is best way to start gathering data on the effectiveness of a firm’s recruiting efforts:

• How many partner candidates does the firm see per year?
• How many of them receive offers?
• How much time typically elapses from initial contact to actual offer, and what can be done to compress that period?
• How much partner-level time is spent on recruiting each candidate?
• How many partners “touch” each candidate in some way during the process?

Answers to such questions should inform the development and refinement of partner-level recruiting processes.

Get the word out that your firm is amenable to seeing candidates

If your firm is amenable to seeing qualified partner-level candidates, then let the world know! Make sure that press releases, website communications, and in-person conversations with partners at other firms all support the message that good candidates are welcome.

I’m often surprised to find that some firms keep secret their willingness to see candidates; to do my job, I need the firms’ guidance on what sort of candidates to refer. This is not to suggest that firms telegraph to the entire market any “open” spots on their bench, or weaknesses in practice area coverage—in such cases, one can understand the desire to keep such information close to the vest. However, there are many ways a firm can raise its profile among prospective lateral partner candidates without revealing precisely what its problem practices or strategic growth plans may be.

Cooperate with recruiters

In the competitive market for lateral partners, law firms have one reliable ally: the legal recruiter. In the first place, recruiters often have long-standing relationships with candidates, and are in an excellent position to know whom to contact about specific firm needs. Law firms would almost never know, for example, whether a particular partner at a competing firm might be amenable to having a conversation; by contrast, it is a recruiter’s business to know such information.

During the recruiting process itself, recruiters also lend firms an invaluable hand. Whether by shepherding a candidacy through firm recruiting requirements, connecting a candidate with the right practice leaders quickly, serving as an intermediary during sensitive compensation discussions, or alerting firm representatives that a candidacy may be in jeopardy, recruiters are an additional set of eyes and ears trained constantly on the candidate. Firms that fail to take advantage of recruiters’ insights do a disservice to themselves and to the candidates they are considering. In other words: don’t hesitate to make us earn our fees.

Conclusion

The Lateral Wars show no sign of letting up any time soon, so firms are well-advised to prioritize partner-level recruiting, especially by senior firm partners, whose attention is often what lateral partners most need as they consider whether to switch. Measuring the effectiveness and efficiency of recruiting processes is one way to learn how best to recruit attractive partners, as firms assess what works and what doesn’t in optimizing their lateral recruiting efforts. Firms can attract increased interest by potential lateral partners when they get the word out that they are amenable to receiving inquiries. Finally, by working hand-in-glove with legal recruiters—their allies in the Lateral Wars—firms increase the probability of actually landing the choicest candidates and practices.

The post Out-recruiting the Competition to Win the War for Legal Talent appeared first on Lateral Lawyer Group.

Orchestrating a Bidding War as a Lateral Partner Candidate 25 Sep 2018, 8:17 pm

As anyone who has ever sold a house (or car, or any item of property) knows, having multiple bidders is the best way to receive a higher sales price. So, too, with a lateral partner candidate who is considering taking his or her practice to another firm: speaking with multiple target firms at the same time is the best way to receive a superior offer. The best legal recruiters are therefore adept at generating several offers simultaneously for each candidate, thereby orchestrating a bidding war—whether explicit or implicit—for the fortunate candidate/offeree. In other words, good legal recruiters actually create markets for their candidates.

The key concept is simultaneity: offers need to be received, as nearly as possible, at the same time. In practical terms, this means receiving offers within a few weeks of one another so that the candidate is presented with multiple options at once. This approach, which I liken to an auction, has distinct benefits for the lateral candidate. Among other reasons, it is beneficial to receive offers simultaneously because they:

• Create a true market, in which multiple participants (law firms) compete with each other to offer the best package to a prospective lateral. This includes not just monetary compensation, but also the entire value of the opportunity to join a particular firm, some of which is within a firm’s immediate control (e.g., dedicated business development budget, support, etc.) and some of which is not (e.g., the firm’s reputation in a given practice area)
• Reflect a candidate’s actual market value, rather than the somewhat random value a single firm might assign to a lateral candidate
• Create a strong incentive for each firm to lead with its highest and best offer, rather than with the relatively stingy initial offer that they might extend if they were more confident of having an opportunity to negotiate back and forth as a sole interlocutor
• Are the only realistic way for a candidate to create actual negotiating leverage when dealing with law firms
• Compress the timeline of the recruiting process
• Reduce the emotional drain of switching firms, by avoiding, to the extent possible, a drawn-out process of offer and counter-offer
• Reduce the likelihood that a candidate’s candidacy will be discovered by his or her current firm
• Permit the lateral candidate and the recruiter to drive the recruiting process, rather than let a single target law firm do so

The foregoing has important implications for the lateral recruiting process. Most importantly, it highlights the benefits of approaching multiple firms at the same time, rather than awaiting an answer from one firm before pursuing other firms. For example, imagine a situation in which a candidate receives an attractive—but not outstanding—offer to join Firm A. If the candidate only then decides to approach Firms B and C, the offer from Firm A may grow stale—as of course the process will just be starting with Firms B and C. Firm A’s offer may not only be withdrawn or lapse; it might also set a low benchmark for later offers from Firms B and C.

Moreover, even if Firm A hasn’t actually imposed an acceptance deadline, delaying acceptance of its offer while one goes through the lateral process at Firms B and C would certainly leave a sour taste in the mouths of prospective colleagues at Firm A—nobody likes to feel as though they were a second choice. Similarly, Firms B and C might also feel that they were second choices, since they were not approached in the first volley. Firms B and C might also perceive—correctly or not—that the only reason they are being included in the mix is that the candidate is trying to leverage Firm A for a sweeter deal. Of course, putting Firm A on hold pending contact with Firms B and C would also be signaling that the offer from Firm A was not attractive enough to accept, thereby giving Firms B and C little incentive to make the best offers that they can.

By contrast, if a candidate is in discussions with all prospective firms at the same time, he or she can truthfully tell each one that:

• It is among his or her first choices
• Other firms are considering his or her candidacy
• He or she will weigh the relative merits of all offers upon receiving them. (A recruiter can also specify a time period during which it would be realistic to expect offers to be made, thereby giving the candidate some control over offer timing)

Not only does this put a positive spin on creating a market, it also gives each firm an incentive to make its decision more quickly than if it believed it had no competition.

Accordingly, lawyers considering making a lateral move are well advised to develop as ample a list of target firms as circumstances permit, and to approach all of those firms at the same time. The alternative approach—i.e., opening discussions with firms in seriatim rather than simultaneously—eliminates the benefits of creating a market, reduces the likelihood of a bidding war, and, potentially, annoys each firm approached.

The post Orchestrating a Bidding War as a Lateral Partner Candidate appeared first on Lateral Lawyer Group.

Case Study: The Quite Illustrative Story of Joe Lateral 25 Sep 2018, 7:56 pm

The following is an excerpt from:  The Lateral Lawyer®:  Opportunities and Pitfalls for the Law Firm Partner Switching Firms, 2d edition (2014), by Adam S. Weiss

As an executive recruiter specializing in law firm partner placements, I am often asked to describe how the process of moving from one firm to another really works.  I usually begin with an illustrative story.

The Situation

Joe Lateral (not his real name) was a corporate and transactional partner in the Houston office one of the 20 largest law firms in the United States.  Over time, Joe had developed a client base that included a mix of energy, technology, and industrial clients.  In terms of actual day-to-day practice, his specialty was mergers and acquisitions (“M&A”) transactions on behalf of middle-market companies acquiring smaller players in their respective industries.  However, as part of a strategic re-focus, Joe’s firm was in the process of concentrating its efforts on serving Fortune 500/Global 1000 clients—which were relatively less resistant to the rate increases that the firm was seeking to institute than were his mid-sized clients.  Because the firm had announced—internally, at least—that it would be pruning partners and practices that did not fit its new model, Joe knew that he had to do something, and soon.

At the suggestion of a colleague whom I had placed years earlier, Joe called me to discuss his dilemma.  As he explained, pressure was building from his current partners to increase his billing rate from the merely stratospheric to the extra-atmospheric—at the same time that Joe’s client base was already grumbling, and sometimes balking, at current rates.  There seemed little possibility of compromise:  either Joe had to raise his rates and risk losing the client base he had built up over his career, or he would face pressure from his partners to leave the firm.

The Strategy

Joe and I had several conversations about his practice, client base, and career goals.  I then performed discreet (i.e., “no-names”) market research with prospective firms to assess their interest in a partner with a practice like Joe’s, and analyzed recent hires by major firms in Joe’s market.  Based on my communications and research, several things became clear:

• Time was of the essence—Joe could see the proverbial writing on the wall
• While Joe’s roughly $1.4 million-per-year book of business was substantially below his current firm’s expectations, it was still well above the minimum required to get the attention of many other firms in the Houston market where he practiced
• Numerous other law firms in the area were keenly interested to acquire a partner with a practice like Joe’s

Keeping these factors in mind, I proposed to Joe an action plan:  we would work together to identify law firms that specialized in serving clients similar to his own—middle-market companies with modest, but real, needs for high-end transactional expertise—and whose complementary practices, reputations, and cultures made them potentially attractive targets for him to explore.

The Action Plan

Having developed an action plan together, I set out to do for Joe what he could not realistically do for himself, given his status as a law firm partner and his limited available time:

• Contacted firms on a no-names basis to determine their interest in a partner with a practice like his
• Assessed recent placements and press releases to determine which firms were looking for partners like him
• Analyzed the partnership composition of firms in Joe’s market to identify opportunities that could be appealing both to him and to prospective firms

Perhaps most importantly, I consistently offered Joe something whose value he, as a professional counselor, could understand:  my professional advice.

On the basis of our conversations and my research, Joe and I created a list of firms that met his requirements and were reasonably likely to extend him offers:  regional and national firms serving mid-sized companies, with offices in several major metropolitan areas, substantial transactional capabilities, and billing rates that could potentially represent a discount compared with what Joe’s clients were being charged at his current firm.  In particular, we reviewed these firms’ recent hiring trends, key personalities, and reputations in the market.  Joe and I agreed to approach seven firms on the list as an initial burst, including several firms with which he was previously not at all familiar.

As expected, several of the firms were simply not interested. Some had recently taken on lateral partners and indicated that they were not in a great position to absorb additional new people immediately.  Others determined that Joe’s practice did not provide them with sufficient cross-selling opportunities.  However, three of the firms on the list expressed interest to learn more about Joe and his practice, and requested that I set up initial meetings to determine whether there might be a good fit.

At the firms’ requests, we scheduled interviews right away and began responding to requests for information about Joe’s client base, billings, and practice in general.  As conversations with the three firms progressed, I worked with Joe to complete the numerous disclosure forms that each firm required, and we prepared for the firms customized business plans describing his practice, client base, and business development strategy.

Winning Results

Two firms made Joe attractive offers to join them.  He chose the one that offered the best combination of compensation, benefits, and support for his practice specialty—serving the transactional and business requirements of mid-sized energy- and technology companies.

“Working with a recruiter was one of the smartest moves in my career,” Joe said later.  He was right.  Had he approached these firms on his own, or had we approached them one at a time instead of simultaneously, Joe would likely not have achieved the same excellent results.  For example, had he contacted each firm directly, Joe would have undercut his own posture as a partner who, while not exactly looking for a new opportunity, was nevertheless amenable to having a discussion.  From my position as a legal recruiter, on the other hand, I could convey the substantially more compelling message:  “I found this great partner at a top firm, and I can bring him to the table if you are interested to learn about him and his practice.”

Likewise, when it came time to negotiate offers, I was able to explain to each firm that it had better lead with its best offer, because Joe was speaking with other firms as well.  In other words, I, as a recruiter, was uniquely able to create a value-maximizing market for Joe’s practice.  While Joe could have tried to accomplish the same, doing so would have put him in the uncomfortable position of potentially antagonizing the very people whose firm he wanted to join.  In such situations, a recruiter’s objectivity can go a long way toward bringing the parties together smoothly and dispassionately.

Joe Lateral—Conclusion

If you are a law firm partner, whether your book of business is large or modest, you probably have more opportunities than you are aware of to move to other firms as a lateral.  Regardless of initial motivation—be it improved compensation, expanded market opportunities, more sophisticated staff, a different billing structure, or fewer potential client conflicts—exploring the available options can benefit both you and your clients.  Such was the case with Joe—who is now his new firm’s office managing partner and a respected member of its national corporate practice.

The post Case Study: The Quite Illustrative Story of Joe Lateral appeared first on Lateral Lawyer Group.