Re: personal referrals, some firms will pay their current associates $$$ if they refer a friend who ends up working at the firm.

I wonder if people ever split the referral money with their friends...

For whatever reason, I received offers from firms that wouldn't hire me as a law student. And I was less than a year out. Maybe lateraling is easy? That said, the reasons for my departure from said firm were apparent to everyone in the room without my having to say anything (i.e., the old firm had issues).

I'll also say the process takes a long time. From my first headhunter conversation to my start date at the new place was a solid 5 months. If you're thinking about making a move, keep this in mind.

Personal referrals are one thing, but why would you ever randomly send a blind resume? Has this ever worked for anyone?

Word of mouf worked so I could get an interview from a small firm. I also work in conjunction with several head hunters, but none have gotten me any interviews yet. I'm told to be patient for the new year with boni babies leaving - it better be accurate!

Headhunters make the process much easier for most laterals. They know what firms are looking, what the specific criteria are for each opportunity and who to contact to make sure your resume gets seen. Additionally, the headhunter can follow up in a way that doesn't make you look desperate by contacting the firm for information regarding whether the resume has been seen or finding out how an interview went.

Many firms post lateral openings on their websites asking for resume submission.

I don't understand why the world needs headhunters. Why can't one just send resumes/transcripts to firms, or get referred to by a buddy in those firms (and split the referral fee)?

Here's a question - can the recruiter actually get you an interview even if you don't meet a firm's grades/pedigree criteria? I'm not talking about those pretentious snobs who are undoubtedly doing to say "vault XX or bust", but just a bigger/better firm. My recruiter seems to have confidence - I'm seriously doubting it.

In a related way, why would a recruiter who knows what the firms' criteria are, agree to take on someone whose credentials would be sub-par? Do they have a special "in" usually?

By blind resume - I mean sending a resume without any indication of a job opening. Has anyone here ever done that?

I think personal referral is far better than headhunter. Headhunters want to place you somewhere--their rhetoric of "we want to find a good fit" notwithstanding. They don't give a shit if you end up somewhere miserable.

A personal referral will give you the inside information. And can head off any disasters. I'd only ever recommend someone who I thought would like it at my firm, and would do a good job. And if I referred someone and then heard that if the referral came, he/she would get assigned to a huge career killing case doing doc review for 3 years, or would be working with a tyrant partner, I'd give a warning.

I'm a headhunter that works exclusively with associates. The main difference between a lateral interview and law school one is the associate has bargaining power and needs to use this to really ask tough questions about the new practice/firm/career development.

!:54---you are right here's an example I just found:
Corporate
Corporate Associate
Accepting resumes 2001-2002
Candidate must have substantial securities act experience as well as top academic credentials.
Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy Associate
Accepting resumes 2004-2005
We are looking for lateral associates with:
(a) experience in major chapter 11 cases representing creditor groups (committees, bondholders, bank groups) or debtors, and
(b) bankruptcy and/or corporate associates with experience representing hedge funds and other institutions in connection with (1) distressed and/or special situation lending arrangements, and (2) distressed m&a and private equity transactions.
Corporate: Banking and Finance
Banking and Finance Associate
Accepting resumes 2004-2005
We are looking for associates with finance and lending experience
Familiarity with UCC is preferred

1:57

HH's are not as good as personal referrals. Their entire purpose is to get you a job somewhere. Not necessarily the best place for you. Think about the economic incentives.

my firm's referral fee is split with half with the 2nd half coming at 18 months. 18 months is a long time, no???

I knew someone who referred someone to the firm and this came up while out to lunch with both of them and two other people. I asked if they split the referral fee. Man was that awkward afterwards.

What do you tell your firm when you go to interview at the other firm? For some reason, calling in sick doesnt seem like a good idea. Can you say you are going to work from home? What is the best strategy.

Half of the 200 posts were lame quips from FRAT (wannabe) STUD

I sent a blind resume and got an interview (and a job) at a smaller office of a biglaw firm. I think it may be more effective in smaller legal markets (especially if you have good academic credentials) than in big cities where there is an endless barrage of resumes from top law school grads.

I sent a blind resume and got an interview (and a job) at a smaller office of a biglaw firm. I think it may be more effective in smaller legal markets (especially if you have good academic credentials) than in big cities where there is an endless barrage of resumes from top law school grads.

2:06---try to do it early in the morning before you come in or in the evening--you can always say you have a drs. appt

I sent a blind resume and got an interview (and a job) at a smaller office of a biglaw firm. I think it may be more effective in smaller legal markets (especially if you have good academic credentials) than in big cities where there is an endless barrage of resumes from top law school grads.

Using a HH is useful to lateral to a firm because I find it's easier to negotiate thru a middleman rather than trying to negotiate directly, the latter of which can make you appear difficult and jepoardize your chance of getting the offer.

That aside, what HH's are really useful/necessary for is getting in-house jobs. Most people I know didn't lateral to another firm but instead go in-house.

2:06 - I always use a doctor's appointment as an excuse...

"I sent a blind resume . ."

OK, OK! We get it already!

What kind of fascist shops do you people work at where you have to explain to someone why you're not at the office?

Ditto 2:18.

Blind resumes DO work, but usually only with groups that have a clear need. A particular group may have a need and will generally work with HR to try and find someone. But the attorneys in the group are busy and don't have the time to always follow-up with HR. When someone emails them out of the blue or the resume lands on the head of the department's desk at the right time, they will be interested provided the resume meets the firms minimum requirements for making an offer and even sometimes if it doesn't when there are other factors indicating that the person would be a good fit.

Plus, hiring without a HH is cheaper for the firm and makes making an offer easier b/c it doesn't come with the HH fee attached.

"I sent a blind resume . ."

OK, OK! We get it already!

Anyone else out there having a hard time lateraling from government practice to private practice? Recruiters say they can't help ... because apparently all law firms think that government lawyers don't actually practice law so their experience is worthless. *sigh* how frustrating!

PS - before people start bashing gov't lawyers, we do practice law - we just don't work 16 hour days like the rest of you in private practice.

I moved to my current position with a personal referral - got no responses to blind letters, but the second a friend passed along a resume, I had a phone call from a partner asking to meet with me. And yes, I found it easier to get offers from places that didn't want me in law school, for whatever reason (top 25% t5 school, so good enough for some but not superstar stuff).

Major benefit of _not_ using a headhunter: when the firm doesn't have to shell out $$$ to the HH, they're more likely to help you out with a signing bonus. Mine was substantial, which was necessary to pay off debts owed to my old firm.

2:14 - I just clicked four times.

2:14 - I just clicked four times.

Anyone else out there having a hard time lateraling from government practice to private practice? Recruiters say they can't help ... because apparently all law firms think that government lawyers don't actually practice law so their experience is worthless. *sigh* how frustrating!

PS - before people start bashing gov't lawyers, we do practice law - we just don't work 16 hour days like the rest of you in private practice.

I once worked for a hiring partner who thought anyone who used a headhunter was stupid and showed "poor judgment" since it would cost him money to hire that person.

Then again, that partner was a fucking stoodge.

Anyone else out there having a hard time lateraling from government practice to private practice? Recruiters say they can't help ... because apparently all law firms think that government lawyers don't actually practice law so their experience is worthless. *sigh* how frustrating!

PS - before people start bashing gov't lawyers, we do practice law - we just don't work 16 hour days like the rest of you in private practice.

2:22 - "debts owed"??? WTF?????

2:22 - "debts owed"??? WTF?????

I don't have much faith in headhunters (although I'm sure there are some good ones out there). I had a headhunter keep telling me that "no one is hiring" litigators in my city when I was looking. Well, I was tired of waiting around and decided to use personal referrals instead. You know what...everyone was hiring. The truth is that most firms are always hiring if you are the right candidate.

Personal referrals are the way to go, if you know people. If not, what choice do you have other than a headhunter?

2:22 - "debts owed"???? WTF???

I don't have much faith in headhunters (although I'm sure there are some good ones out there). I had a headhunter keep telling me that "no one is hiring" litigators in my city when I was looking. Well, I was tired of waiting around and decided to use personal referrals instead. You know what...everyone was hiring. The truth is that most firms are always hiring if you are the right candidate.

Personal referrals are the way to go, if you know people. If not, what choice do you have other than a headhunter?

Seriously Lat, how much is Lateral Link paying you to start these threads? How long before the blog just completely sells out to its sponsors?

jobu, you've got it all wrong. i'm the one who emailed lat the idea and list of quetions. nothing to do with lateral link.

no reason to use a hh for finding a firm job, only adds costs. just check the websites. if want inhouse, open ears, tell trusted colleagues, listen for rumors of openings with clients. if all else fails, hh might be useful for inhouse. maybe.

How do you negotiate salary when switching from a plaintiff firm to a defense firm? Defense firms pay way more, how do you know how much you're worth?

Just about everybody I know who lateralled to a large firm did so via a headhunter.

How do you negotiate salary when switching from a plaintiff firm to a defense firm? Defense firms pay way more, how do you know how much you're worth?

I sent out blind resumes and heard nothing (from TTT firms). Used a headhunter and got some great interviews immediately (from a firm that would not have looked at me in law school).

/threadjack

Sorry to interrupt, but i need to verify something for a bet - does anyone know of any amlaw 100 firms paying more than 160K base starting salaries for first-year associates (other than Williams and Conolly)?

thanks

/threadjack

2:45-Wachtell's base is $165,000

How do you negotiate salary when switching from a plaintiff firm to a defense firm? Defense firms pay way more, how do you know how much you're worth?

Guys from my high school became headhunters after dropping out and screwed lots of hard-working associates who could have gotten good jobs without them but collected huge fees on the ones they placed and didn't have to do any real work becuase those people could have easily gotten the same jobs without their help. It was no big deal.

Will somebody please tell me how do you negotiate salary when switching from a plaintiff firm to a defense firm? Defense firms pay way more, how do you know how much you're worth?

Wachtell was my safety.

2:55,

But an hour later, were they horny again?

Lateral Link is very good and can walk your through the process. They have excellent reputation with firms (hated by other HH's) and everyone I know that used them had a very positive experience.

happy lawyer

When moving from biglaw to biglaw, the real value in a headhunter only comes out when you are dealing with multiple offers. It's hard for an individual to try to play firms off on each other to get better starting conditions (maybe a signing bonus, a trip to where you are relocating to, etc.) because if you eventually do work there, you'll start off being known as that greedy punk. But by having the headhunter do it, you can play it off as saying it's the headhunter, not you. It's like ARod going to the yankees and saying it was scott boras, not me. It diffuses the responsibility.

Of course, in a down economy where you're just looking for "a" job, I'm sure a headhunter will hurt b/c the firm will need to dole out some 50K+ to the headhunter which is a very real expense.

These trolls are more intolerable than those robber-barons from the Sugar Trust!

How do you go about negotiating a signing bonus? I have no clue what the market will bear.

screw lateral link. my peon self with my decent grades at a nonelite school wouldn't want to deal with such pretentious snobs like lateral link anyway. So no, not all hh would be unhappy, since a great deal of great lawyers are not from "elite" schools.

This profession is so assbackwards.

3:11 -- your fault for going to TTT

LAteral Link is very picky and only recruits from elite schools. Not their fault...that is what clients want. They are newcomers, but have burst on scene...started with a couple Harvard ex-Associates. May Smythe is AMAZING recruiter.

Banacle Bob--truly a very funny post!

Good for lateral link. Bad for us non-elite school goers. And firms talk about the "dire need" for more associates...such bullshit.

3:11 - "This profession is so assbackwards."

Maybe, but not for the reasons you are suggesting. It is not assbackwards for employers to use hiring criteria that serve as proxy for intelligence and hard work.

Now go defend a Podiatrist in some malpractice case.

Please tell me - what does TTT stand for??

Three cheers for Barnacle Bob! That's the first actually funny ATL comment I've seen in weeks.

I was wondering if anyone could opine about their experience or opinion in regards to using two different headhunters to make a lateral move? I submitted materials to a couple firms with one headhunter and then found out there were positions available at different firms that a different headhunter said were available but the first headhunter never mentioned. Both headhunters operate in the same city for positions I am looking at. Thanks.

3:27 --

True, but I think the gripe by non-elite law school grads is that a school's ranking is not a great proxy. It's some evidence of "intelligence and hard work," but it shouldn't be considered dispositive.

I was wondering if anyone could opine about their experience or opinion in regards to using two different headhunters to make a lateral move? I submitted materials to a couple firms with one headhunter and then found out there were positions available at different firms that a different headhunter said were available but the first headhunter never mentioned. Both headhunters operate in the same city for positions I am looking at. Thanks.

Listen I'm a non-elite school grad and I'm not deluding myself that I can get into Skadden or Cravath - nor would I want to. I just want to get in - i know I'm not in the position to say, hmmm vault 25 or vault 29?

That said, not every biglaw firm (in vault, or amlaw, or midsize firm) is always going to get the elite school grads. That's how I'm trying to get in - so any reasonably useful information from people who've actually had to bust their ass and fight tooth and nail for, would be much appreciated. Not those fortunate ones who can skate from Vault XX to Amlaw XX and so on.

You can have one good one or two mediocre ones. You have to keep a spreadsheet and keep track of who submits where. they will ask you before each submission.... don't tell them about eachother. or just hire a good one -- they will have access to all jobs.

Lateral Link and Africa Majors are good ones.

For another glorious law blog, see http://newamericanmale.blogspot.com/

Fuck Lateral Link. They did not accept me because I did not go to an "elite" school. Yet I graduated top of my class from a TT, did COA and fed. district court clerkships (not BS ones either - legit, presitgious circuit and district), and currently work at a V5 firm. Oh well, their loss. What douches.

So other than its selectivity in regards to candidates why is Latetal Link "better" than other headhunters?

And why do other headhunters supposedly despise Lateral Link so much?

HH probably despire Lateral Link because these are the "cream of the crop" - meaning its the easiest to place them because they all went to the top top schools bla bla bla. So, basically by weeding everybody out except for the top 5-10 students from each school, it makes the other HH have to work that much harder to get other, just as experienced and probably better (except for the "grades" bullshit factor) people a job.

we headhunters hate lateral link because they are messing up our business model. the rest of us can't offer the "bonus" because a lot of our law firm clients look down on it.

Lateral Link sent my resume to 4 shops which I did not give them permission to do. In fact, I expressly told them not to. Since they have such a limited amount of candidates I guess they were too hungry.

and here's the other thing. latlink has no experience. they have been around for ten minutes. they have no clue re the firms, practice groups, fit, etc.

wouldn't you want to work with someone who has, um, some experience? it's the equivalent of hiring a first year associate to do your biggest deal.

Lateral Link "accepted" me but I was the one telling them about position openings - and had to hound them repeatedly to actually submit my resume (which they would do weeks later).

In general, I think recruiters are a bad idea, even if you're an elite school graduate, unless you had a very high GPA. If you had a normal or marginal GPA, the recruiter's fee will be a big disincentive for any firm to hire you, given that there are other equally qualified candidates they could hire sans fee.

Lateral Link is not good, i am all with you on the latlink hating, but so not true re: the rest of your post. we get plenty of good candidates who aren't cravath types tons of interviews. firms really don't care about their lateral recruiting budgets, trust me.

So can recruiters with "good" relationships with firms help a "sub-par" (grades wise only) candidate get into the door? Or are firms so fucking inflexible that it's all for naught?

You hear stories of great attorneys who had shitty grades at biglaw - and yet the ivory tower of "eliteness" pervading legal hiring just discourages me. I'm not trying to get into Sullivan or Cravath. Why are firms such bitches sometimes?

i mean, look, you can't work miracles. but if you're in a sought-after practice area, you can certainly be placed into firms that would not consider you at oci.

I wouldn't use Lateral Link at all. They are new to the scene, and they're the only firm offering a $10,000 bonus. There's just something odd about that.

TTT = Third Tier Toilet

I lateraled earlier this year using a headhunter, a few thoughts:

1) Agreed that headhunters don't always have your best intentions in mind. It is a good idea to use a headhunter that was recommended to you by a friend than the guy who calls with "a great opportunity for a mid level with exactly your skills at a well known Midtown law firm." Having said this, it does come in handy to have your HH negotiate things such as bonus (esp. if you're not negotiating this in Jan. or Feb.,) start dates, (i.e. you want 3-4 weeks off before you start), etc. which would be much harder to do directly with your new employer. Also, most HH don't get paid in full until 6, 9, or even 12 months after you start so it is not really in their benefit to just send you anywhere, even if you'd be miserable. At my old firm a guy left after 8 months and the HH only got 25% of his fee as the requirement was 9 month employment for new hires. A good HH, that has been recommended can go a long way.

2) Having said, #1 I do know through friends that some smaller firms (i.e. non big-law behemoths) do hire people they didn't have to pay $50-60K to a headhunter for more easily than people who came through a headhunter. It is something that might be in your favor esp. if you are looking at mid-size firms or have some extraordinary situation, i.e. you are a 4th year litigation associate who is looking to swich to corporate and came highly referred from inside the firm and the firm does not have to pay a headhunter fee. Nevertheless, I think that at bigger firms $50-60K is a drop in the bucket for what they see as a good associate who they are willing to hire. The HH fee is not going to be the deal-breaker for such firms as they see it as part of the investment in you.

3) While it is true that I got offers from "better" firms than I did in law school, I believe that is because of the practice area and some firms are more willing to hire someone 2, 3, or 4 years out wtih a certain skill set than one more person that is "top 25%, journal, great writing skills, who loves corporate law" or however it is most people package themselves at OCI. That being said it is also the case that many firms where I was really interested in in law school, I wouldn't touch after having heard stories and talked to friends 3 years out of law school. So the fact that "X Vault Top 20" firm is actually giving you an offer whereas it wouldn't even meet with you in law school isn't necessarily a good thing. It might the case that "X Vault Top 20" firm just lost 30% of its mid-levels cause its a miserable sweat shop with horrible human beings to work for and it cannot retain anyone. So make sure you don't just go for the firm you had a crush on in law school that wouldn't give you the time of day just because they are now interested in you.

4) In terms of getting out of the office for interviews, I agree that usually it is not a problem as people at my old firm didn't monitor my movements all day. There was a situation where there was a drafting call scheduled for the time I had an interview so I told the senior associate a few days in advance I would not be in on that day. I personally never got pushed as to why I'm taking a day off and I think it would be weird if you were... if push comes to shove you can always make something up or say it is a personal matter. The fact that you are scared to go on an interview shouldn't be the reason you stay at a place you're not content with.

5) As opposed to law school interviews I felt that you have MUCH more leeway to ask hard questions to your employers and you actually have questions to ask as opposed to "how is the quality of life" and "give me an example of a routine day at your firm." Interviewers also would expect that you have a few things to talk about work-wise and explain why it is you are looking for a switch. Also, since lateral interviews technically occur year round and you don't have to get a job during a 2 week OCI period or "your life is over" you can be more selective and go in the mentality that if you don't like what you hear you are willing to wait another month or two to make the switch. You have more of an opportunity to tailor the type of firm you want simply because you know what it is you want and don't want more than as a 2L or 1L. This can in turn lead to a better interview and have firms that would not hire you in law school give you offers.

what are the credentials that you need for Lateral Link to accept you?

any advice on moving from a small market to NY? 2nd year (2006 grad) - T10 school - but went to a small market and have decided i want to head to NYC (doesn't have to be biglaw, but someplace decent and good money), but have heard the stories that "no one is hiring litigation" etc. etc. - is it true that things will pick up after bonuses? or am i just screwed because i didn't go biglaw straight out?

Law firms don't care about their lateral recruiting budgets. You think the person hiring you will care? It won't affect their bonus. They may even get a larger one since their performance will be measured by quality/quantity of candidates brought in. If you've worked in Biglaw you know exactly the type of counter intuitive thinking/logic I'm talking about.

Law firms don't care about their lateral recruiting budgets. You think the person hiring you will care? It won't affect their bonus. They may even get a larger one since their performance will be measured by quality/quantity of candidates brought in. If you've worked in Biglaw you know exactly the type of counter intuitive thinking/logic I'm talking about.

All of the job postings on Lateral Link are lifted directly from the respective firms' websites. LL's minions then just remove the actual name of the firm. They always leave enough of the original ad that you can find the firm with a Google search. Lo and behold, you'll find the job posting on the website for that law firm.

Other headhunters hate LL because LL decided they didn't want to abide by the ethical rules to which most recruiters subscribe, one of which is not to provide kickbacks of recruiting fees to the applicants.

I made a lateral move at the beginning of this year. I met with a couple of different recruiters, but they didn't provide any good referrals. My move came as a result of a referral by a client of the new firm whom I had worked with. If you want to move, and know where you want to go, my advice would be to leverage any inside contacts you might have.

"Other headhunters hate LL because LL decided they didn't want to abide by the ethical rules to which most recruiters subscribe, one of which is not to provide kickbacks of recruiting fees to the applicants."

Err, the rules you speak of are not *ethical* rules, but rules of the market. They sell a slightly different product - the firms get only high quality applicants; the applicants get a piece of change. The only losers in this arrangement are the other LL's, about whom your humble commenter gives not the flyingest of f*cks.

LL=HH. sorry.

seriously, though, it's shady. and firms know it. and it isn't rules of the market. go to the NALSC (National Association of Legal Search Consultants). see the section on ethics. just about all of our clients specify in the contracts they have with us that we abide by this code.

heretofore, yes, an ethical rule. and a contractual obligation. and, moreover, a reason why many law firms are not keen on latllink resumes.

4:17 did you go to Loyola or something? Firms will still get high quality candidates no matter what. It's their criteria that counts not the headhunter's. If a headhunter (not LL) sends a shitty resume, how much longer do you think that relationship will last with that law firm? HHs are there to help both candidate and client. There are ethical boundaries that are being crossed, if not, why wouldn't a pack of ex Harvards from Biglaw backgrounds touting such a "product" as you proclaim, not be able to secure relationships with all the major firms?

Even if it is an "ethical rule," it is one in a mala prohibita sense only - an ethical rule *because* it's on the books. What's so shady about paying the lateral applicant for his business?

Yes, I understand there are no formal licensure requirements or binding ethical rules for legal recruiters. More of a "gentleman's agreement" kind of situation, which I don't fault LL for exploiting. I was just commenting on why other headhunters hate LL.

It's interesting, because the kickback scheme was really a way for a bunch of completely inexperienced first- and second-year associates to try to break into the recruiting market. Now that they are in the market, and other headhunters are adopting similar bonus programs, the kickbacks may actually undermine their profit.

This supposed "ethical" rule sounds more like a way to enforce a cartel. Thus, HHs seem to be scared of Lateral Link as they may be able to force the value of their service to its actual market value (while splitting excess utility gains with the candidates) and not its artificially inflated value. Would be the same if OPEC said they set prices on some supposed precept other than trying to avoid a competitive market. The ethics rationale does not even pass the laugh test as to HHs.

The statement that the only losers are competing headhunters is true only if law firm jobs is a commodities market, i.e., every firm is exactly the same. Jokes and stereotypes aside, we all know that not all firms (or practice groups within firms) are the same. LL was founded by a bunch of first- and second-year associates. They have no idea what firms are what, what practice areas are solid, what partners generate, etc. A decent headhunter (not to say there are many out there) will have a better understanding of those kinds of considerations and can be more of an asset to a candidate.

This supposed "ethical" rule sounds more like a way to enforce a cartel. Thus, HHs seem to be scared of Lateral Link as they may be able to force the value of their service to its actual market value (while splitting excess utility gains with the candidates) and not its artificially inflated value. Would be the same if OPEC said they set prices on some supposed precept other than trying to avoid a competitive market. The ethics rationale does not even pass the laugh test as to HHs.

Any ideas on what to do if you have an offer from a firm, but need to wait until bonus time to resign? Is it ethical to accept a position with another firm without telling your current firm for another month? What if your current firm and future firm are adverse to each other in a currently pending case?

and, yes, it is a rule only because it's on the books. but, whether the rule is fake or not, it is one that countless law firms abide by. again, in their contracts with headhunters. hence, said firms would not enter into contracts with latlink. hence, candidate would never know about all the other firms looking and available to them because latlink would not offer those firms to candidate. greedy candidate would hence take inferior job and make shitty career move without even knowing it. that's the danger, guys.

and ps how is it a cartel if the consumer/client is the law firm and not the candidate?

Couple of points I think should be clarified:

1. HH don't work for the candidate they work for the law firm. The law firm pays them, and the law firm requires a refund of the fee if the candidate does not stick around for 6-12 mos. Therefore it is in the best interest of the HH to make a good match. To the poster who said he/she "worked for a lateral hiring partner who said candidates that use HH are stupid" - again the firm is the one who usually puts the HH on a search for the associate, not the other way around. What many HH won't tell you is that there is such a thing as a retained search - where the firm pays the HH up front to go and find candidates for them.

2. Which brings me to point #2. You should use multiple HH's. Why? Because not all HH's know about all jobs. A HH usually has a list of client firms and source firms. He will not recruit out of a client firm and will not place people in a source firm. The HH has to get their candidates from somewhere! So most good HH's usually only have a handful of clients in each market segment (Big Law, mid law, small law, etc) and the rest are sources. So the only way you the candidate can get complete coverage is to work with multiple HH's. In some cases if a firm has retained a HH then they are usually excusively working with that HH so other HH's won't have access to those jobs.
3. As it has been said several times here and on other threads big firms don't care about HH fees. These fees are budgeted and they know they will have to pay one. Just because they don't pay one doesn't automatically mean you will get a big sign on bonus. Also in the case of a HH who is retained - the law firm has already shelled out the fee to the HH and is waiting on candidates - they will not hire someone who comes on their own or through a different HH because they wil then "lose" the fee that has already been paid to the HH.

4:35, is that the only thing you learned in ECON 101? Because if my understanding is correct, sooner than later, whether an enforcement of your supposed "cartel" works or doesn't, most HHs around the city will embrace the same business model Meanwhile, few firms do business with LL and by the time firms begin to accept this practice (if they do) then other hhs will just copycat them and then the market will be level again. In the end LL screws itself as well as the candidates it may place and then risk law firms not accepting this behavior as legitimate. Doesn't seem like a fair trade off to me.

And as in any prisoner's dilemna, the first actor to break a "cartel" can take a disproportionate amount of gains resulting in an ultimately efficient (even if less lucrative) market. Thus, Lateral Link has essentially done just that and it will now be a "copycat" race to follow them eventually unless truly anticompetitive practices are at issue. And Lateral Link's actions are perfectly rationale. If other headhunters have an informational advantage then they should pony up a bonus to stop Lateral Link's current market advantage and stop bitching about how a heretofore restrained market is somehow better for candidates who can choose to work with who they please.

And as in any prisoner's dilemna, the first actor to break a "cartel" can take a disproportionate amount of gains resulting in an ultimately efficient (even if less lucrative) market. Thus, Lateral Link has essentially done just that and it will now be a "copycat" race to follow them eventually unless truly anticompetitive practices are at issue. And Lateral Link's actions are perfectly rationale. If other headhunters have an informational advantage then they should pony up a bonus to stop Lateral Link's current market advantage and stop bitching about how a heretofore restrained market is somehow better for candidates who can choose to work with whom they please.

4:21 HH - So you are telling me that all NALSC HH's follow these ethics. Doubt it. "No search firm shall recruit any attorney from the office of an employer in which it has made a placement for a six-month period following that placement, unless the search firm reasonably believes such a restriction is not required by the employer." Based on the number of "are you happy" calls and emails I get from HH's every week; I think it's safe to assume these ethics only exist to make us feel as though NALSC is in our best interest....not sold

5:08-

A few weeks ago, I got one of those "are you happy" calls from a HH through whom my firm had just hired a lateral three months before.

HHs are like any service provider--buyer beware.

anon and laugh!,

hey, we are not all animals.

no, we do not recruit for six months out of a place where we made a placement. as with all things, a bunch of people ruin it for everyone else.

ps not all search firms are NALSC members. in fact, most are not. you may want to work with one that is.

5:12-If you want a real laugh, go read the NALSC Code of Ethics

the reason latlink is able to pony up bonuses is because they don't do any work. they don't develop relationships with the firms, instead just reposting website openings. they don't get to know you over the years so they have an idea of what you're looking for by the time you're ready the way that annoying hh who calls you a few times per year does. some firms don't work with them because they cannot in good faith sign a contract that prohibits kickbacks. and, finally, they have ZERO EXPERIENCE.

i can see the appeal of the money, sure, but at what cost?

I had the final all-day interview with all the high muckety-mucks for my next job scheduled and had planned to call in the morning of the interview and tell my secretary I would not be there "for personal reasons"...at the end of the day beforehand, my then-boss said he had accidentally booked two meetings in different cities for the next day and needed me to cover one...uh oh...I told him I couldn't...wouldn't...had personal business to attend to...he had a complete fit about my insubordination and then it occurred to him and he said, "You have an interview, don't you...?" Um yeah. Wow...that really upped the pressure on GETTING the new job, which, luckily, I did.

5:19- why would I want to work with a HH that is part of NALSC when most clearly do not follow their own code of ethics? I would rather seek a HH who does not pretend to have said ethics and who can get me a better lat opp-that's all I care about! What are the names of the search firms that give you $$?

5:40, it's conceivable, at least in theory, that the offending hh's who call the firms where they just made placements are non-nalsc members, no? not saying that is definitely the case, but might be.

in any event, sure, the most important thing is that you get the best lat oppy. at the end of the day, not much else matters. my issue with latlink is that, while they give you the money, they are -- because of their model -- unable to give you the best opp because they are prevented from introducing you to any number of firms. and while a firm may never know that a hh who just placed there is calling their associates, the firm knows every time a resume comes from latlink because, well, it comes from latlink. or, in this case, doesn't, as latlink can't work with said firms.

which brings me to another thought. firms think latlink is sketchy. your resume comes in on latlink letterhead. firms -- recruiting people, partners, etc. -- know that you are the greedy candidate who is getting the kickback. does that do you a lot of good in terms of getting you the best lat opp?

5:48, shut up. If the associate's choice is between (1) Firm A with no $10k kickback and (2) Firm A with a $10k kickback, no one's going to think you're "greedy" for picking option 2; they're going to think you're rational (and not an idiot).

How is it that when I actually take the time to read this blog, it turns out to be some trash talking session about LatLink. Who cares if people use them. There are plenty of search firms to choose from. They found a way to differentiate themselves, good for them. Is it really that big of a deal that they give us $? I came here to read real thoughts and opinions, not to watch HH's argue and complain about one another.

you're a moron, since