Law Schools

Who Runs The [Recruiting] World?

The best method? It's having a non-practicing attorney or other professional head up a firm’s recruiting efforts. 

By  
on

(Image via Giphy)

While this column has been dark for the last couple of weeks, much like white nationalism at a Donald Trump rally, I did not leave Above the Law, but rather took a brief hiatus and now have come roaring back.  Unlike Trump, my absence was on account of paternity leave, as opposed to staffers being able to convince me to talk about infrastructure for five minutes before veering off into a rant that would run afoul of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  While Vanderbilt has not replicated the unlimited paid parental leave of Susman Godfrey — though I find myself agreeing with Vivia Chen’s recent skepticism as to how far one can advance in their Biglaw career if they take advantage of these lengthy leaves — I did have the chance to spend some time at home with my #4under4 brood, that in short order shifted to #four4andunder.  Those couple (read: two) of weeks at home, provided me with a chance to step back from the day to day work of a Career Services Office and think about some broader issues in the legal recruiting world.  Indeed, it’s remarkable the sort of clarity that can descend upon you when you are awoken, for the fourth time in the night, at 3 a.m., especially after you can mentally piece together the day and where you are.

(Image via Giphy)

One of the early morning topics I had bouncing around my head was the structure of law firm recruiting.  With the “Fall” recruiting cycle in full gear, my interaction with law firm recruiters will reach their yearly zenith over the next several weeks.  And while I am not one to typically tell someone how to run their business in real life, that trepidation regularly falls by the wayside in this space.

In thinking about this issue, there appear to be two primary topics when looking at a law firm’s recruiting organizational chart.  First, how to structure a recruiting office; second, who should be in charge.  The first question seems to have the simpler answer.  While each firm’s personnel needs and economic circumstances will dictate the size of their recruiting staff, it seems clear that there needs to be a designated recruiting head.  This is especially true when talking about firms with revenues in the billions and offices scattered throughout every corner of the world in a way that would make Alexander the Great blush, but is also true for single-office firms.  A small army’s worth of recruiting staff will not do a firm any good if there is no unified vision and approach to attracting students and retaining attorneys.  This is not to say that a firm’s offices in New York, Houston, Beijing, and Des Moines all need to be looking for the exact same types of talent to fill their ranks, but rather, should be employing similar evaluative metrics and approaching candidates in a similar way.  An array of methods will likely lead to confusion on the part of students and attorneys of uneven skill and longevity.

The second of the aforementioned questions, what sort of person should be running the recruitment and retention effort is a bit more difficult.  In my experience, there have been three staffing approaches: the first is to have a non-attorney junior human resources professional in charge; second, let one of the currently active attorneys, almost assuredly a partner, take the reins; third, having a non-practicing attorney or other senior professional (e.g., an academic or human resources) crafting and managing the recruiting efforts.  Perhaps not surprisingly, I strongly gravitate to the third option.  Why?  Let us take a look at the first two scenarios.

There is an obvious logic to having talent acquisition and retention in the hands of human resources, that is how most other industries address such matters.  And I have great love for those who work in human resources as my late mother spent several decades in just such a role.  But as most every law student and lawyer will tell you, the legal industry is unique among professional workforces.  Especially in the realm of Biglaw, there is little ability to attract candidates by the tried and true method of paying more than your competition.  Instead, firms need to stand out for other reasons.  There’s also a good amount of egotism among attorneys and if they believe their fate is being decided by a non-attorney or C-suite-level expert, it will likely encourage them to look elsewhere.  Plus, even with years of experience, it can be difficult for a junior HR professional to fully understand, and perhaps more importantly, empathize, with attorneys.  This can lead to poor selection of law students and lateral attorneys.

Sponsored

Obviously, an attorney currently practicing at the firm will have a far better understanding of both the general stresses that exist for being a lawyer as well as the specific issues that can arise at a particular firm.  So why not have a partner in charge of recruiting?  My objection is quite simple: isn’t that attorney’s time better spent elsewhere, specifically billing hours and generating more revenue for the firm?  Senior partners are the ones who likely have the best understanding of a firm’s needs, but to place them in charge of recruiting means either forfeiting seven or eight figures worth of firm revenue that would otherwise be generated but for the fact that the partner is having to traipse across the country for OCI or try to formulate a firm recruiting policy post-NALP Guidelines; or requires said senior partner to add the demands of the recruiting process on top of their already exhausting work schedule.  This can be difficult for senior partners who are often advanced ages.  If the burden falls to more junior partners, then the option of not generating revenue seems off the table, so they are left only to try and balance recruiting demands on top of their existing case load.  And here I thought one of the benefits of partnership was to reduce some of the crushing workload.

This brings me to what would seem to be the best method, having a non-practicing attorney or other professional head up a firm’s recruiting efforts.  Granted, this method is probably going to be the most expensive as a firm has to pay a salary commensurate with a title such as Chief Talent Officer, but the results will more than justify the cost.  Having an attorney in the role will allow a vision of talent acquisition and retention that makes sense for law firms to be crafted, rather than having to graft on a model from the business world.  And the talent that you wish to attract will take notice.  While a non-practicing attorney might be the ideal circumstance, there are numerous others who can develop a high level of firm talent.  Some firms have started to pick up Ed.Ds from law schools as these individuals have an in-depth knowledge of how candidates got into law school, and what secrets that might hold for their future attorney performance.  And while there might be a legal learning curve if bringing on a highly experienced C-suite-level human resources professional, such a move could pay off in spades as previously garnered expertise is brought to bear in a Biglaw world that is sometimes lacking in basic understandings of interpersonal dynamics.

No law firm can succeed for an extended period of time without a continued influx of new talent and the retention of the best current talent.  While there are many different ways a firm can organize and staff its recruiting efforts, a unified approach with a single non-practicing attorney or other senior professional executive is likely going to generate the best outcomes and produce the strongest firm.

Nicholas Alexiou is the Director of LL.M. and Alumni Advising as well as the Associate Director of Career Services at Vanderbilt University Law School. He will, hopefully, respond to your emails at abovethelawcso@gmail.com.

Sponsored

Topics

, , ,