Job Searches, Small Law Firms

4 Things That Small Firms Need To Change When It Comes To Hiring Talent

In the world of small law, hiring is somewhat of a crapshoot.

By  
on

At some point, I’ll need to post a Help Wanted sign next to my shingle. But in the world of small law, hiring is somewhat of a crapshoot.

We don’t post job listings that stay up for six months hoping that the purple squirrel will come along. Also, we don’t have the budget to hire recruiters or advertise in every legal publication and website. And most importantly, we need help fairly quickly.

I admit I don’t have a lot of experience when it comes to hiring. So I decided to do some research on finding employees.

Looking online wasn’t much help. There are a multitude of advice articles, and a lot of them seem to conflict with each other. I honestly couldn’t find an article that was particularly helpful.

So I next looked at solo and small-firm attorney message boards and looked for discussions involving hiring employees. But most of the responses tended to be horror stories describing the employee from hell. The one that’s consistently late. The one with the bad attitude. The one that embezzled the trust account money. And the one who turned into a homewrecker.

In sum, when it came to actual hiring advice, I have heard some common themes: Don’t make any promises when it comes to money, hire only people who are genuinely interested in your practice area, supervise your employees closely, and don’t hire people who plan to upgrade to a better firm.

I have issues with the above advice to varying degrees. Some of them might be outdated, while others seem to be based on paranoia, fear, and superstition. Here are four changes I plan to implement when I eventually hire:

Sponsored

I won’t make vague promises about promotions and raises. The problem I see here is when small-law employers make promises that mean nothing. For example, they offer a very low base pay but promise a possible raise at some point in the future depending on performance.

I get that employers don’t want to put themselves in a position where they can’t pay what they promised. But people want specifics, especially when it comes to money. There is a reason why every top law firm has a specific salary and promotion structure. Employees have bills to pay, including their student loans. Finally, whether employers want them to or not, employees are relying on their promises to make major financial decisions in the future. Breaking those promises will quickly hurt morale and very likely result in employees secretly making plans to defect (and they usually leave at the most inopportune time).

If working for me is not their first choice, I won’t hold it against them. The problem for a significant number law school graduates is that their careers choose them, not the other way around.

Like most people, I would prefer to hire someone who is familiar with my specialty. But even if a candidate’s academic background and professional work history suggests that working for me is not their first choice, I am willing to hear them out. I am not particularly interested in hearing their prepared speech about how their irrelevant skill-sets are transferable to my practice. I am more interested in hearing about how quickly they can adapt to new situations, and their ability to be reliable and meet deadlines.

Trusted employees can go home early and work from home so long as they get their job done. A lot of employers still believe in maximizing face time at the office so that employees can be properly supervised. But I personally don’t see the point of a diligent and reliable employee staying in the office longer than necessary.

Sponsored

If they get their jobs done and want to leave an hour or two early, I am likely to let them do so. And I won’t dock their pay. I would also encourage them to leave early attend to attend networking mixers, CLE events, or other fun activities that can result in business development.

Today, with high-performance scanners, and the ability to transfer documents remotely through the cloud, it is easier than ever to work from home or anywhere else. So I am inclined to let trusted professionals work remotely whenever possible. This will allow parents to spend more time with their family, and possibly reduce daycare costs.

Of course, there are some caveats. First, they have to earn my trust. Also, they must agree to work only from home or another secure location. In other words, they cannot work at a local coffee shop.

I don’t mind if people leave me for something better so long as there is a transition plan. Finally, some people in small law are reluctant to hire because they think that the employee will leave once they find something better. But I’ve learned that this seldom happens, as employees are very reluctant to leave a secure job where they are comfortable and happy. And if they really want to leave, I do not want them to miss out on a good opportunity. All I ask is that they give enough notice before they leave so that I can find and train a replacement and ensure a smooth transition.

My rationale for this is that if I force (or guilt-trip) employees to stay, they will eventually be resentful and will not give their best work. Second, they might be referral sources. Finally, in the long run, if I gain a reputation for being a feeder to prestigious firms, then more people with good credentials will want to work for me.

Shannon Achimalbe was a former solo practitioner for five years before deciding to sell out and get back on the corporate ladder. Shannon can be reached by email at sachimalbe@excite.com and via Twitter: @ShanonAchimalbe.

Topics

, , , , , , , , , ,