Why Law Firms Should Rarely (if Ever) Hire Lateral Candidates Coming from Practice Settings Other Than an Organized Law Firm

Description

In this webinar, Harrison delves deep into the intricate world of attorney hiring practices within law firms. Drawing from over 25 years of experience as a legal placement recruiter, Harrison sheds light on the often-overlooked nuances that determine an attorney's success within a law firm environment.

From cautionary tales of hiring attorneys from non-law firm settings to the challenges faced by those transitioning from in-house roles, Harrison provides invaluable insights that can reshape hiring strategies. He emphasizes the importance of aligning career paths with personal passions and the specific demands of law firm culture.

With a keen eye for identifying red flags and optimizing hiring processes, Harrison underscores the significance of strategic networking and tailored resumes in securing coveted positions within law firms. By understanding the unique dynamics at play, both firms and candidates can make informed decisions that foster long-term success and growth.

In a legal landscape where every choice can shape the trajectory of a career, Harrison's webinar serves as a beacon of guidance, illuminating pathways to professional fulfillment and prosperity. Join us in our quest for career excellence as we navigate the ever-evolving legal job market.

Transcript:

Welcome to this webinar. If you're an attorney and not someone in charge of hiring in a law firm, you're in luck. We didn't send out a formal announcement because this session is specifically for law firms. However, attorneys checking in will benefit as well, as this presentation is about hiring practices from non-law firm settings.

This webinar aims to provide career-changing information that many people don’t learn in law school. Over the past 25 years, I’ve observed what makes attorneys succeed in law firms and the type of hiring law firms need to do to be effective. Hiring attorneys from outside law firms is particularly challenging, and I'll explain why this often doesn't work out.

My job is to help law firms avoid hiring mistakes, especially hiring attorneys from non-law firm practice settings. I'm a legal placement recruiter, and my goal is to provide honest advice, even if it doesn’t always serve my interests. I’m here to help law firms avoid hiring mistakes and to advise against hiring attorneys from non-law firm settings, such as in-house, academic, public interest, or solo practices.

I advise law firms not to hire in-house attorneys, attorneys from academic settings, public interest attorneys, or those who went back to law school for LLMs—with some exceptions. Attorneys who left law firms mid-career for clerkships or have solo practices are often difficult hires. I've placed thousands of attorneys and reviewed even more resumes, observing patterns in what works and what doesn't.

Generally, attorneys coming from non-law firm practice settings rarely stay long in law firms, often leaving soon after they are hired. This creates a bad experience for both the law firm and the attorney, affecting the morale of other attorneys in the firm. It’s rare for these hires to work out.

I’ve reviewed over 600,000 resumes, and I’m sharing my experience today. Law firms with well-organized recruiting departments understand these issues and rarely hire from non-law firm settings. If an attorney leaves a law firm and then wants to return, it's often very difficult. Law firms are cautious and understand that once an attorney has shown any form of disloyalty or a lack of commitment, it's hard to regain trust.

If you're an attorney thinking of leaving a law firm, consider the risks. Leaving means you may never develop your own book of business, leading to a lack of independence in your career. Staying in a law firm allows you to build a book of business and potentially work for law firms for decades.

Law firms should be cautious about hiring attorneys who are not currently in law firms. If a candidate isn't working in a law firm, it often means they couldn't get a position in one, don't like working in a law firm, or were asked to leave a law firm—all red flags.

Law firms know what to expect from other law firms, but they cannot gauge the standards of in-house legal departments or other practice settings. Non-law firm attorneys often do not have the same accountability to clients, partners, or the firm itself. This makes it difficult for them to adjust to the demands of a law firm environment.

Most law firms should avoid hiring attorneys from in-house positions. Once an attorney goes in-house, they often stay in-house, seeking more work-life balance and avoiding billable hours. This mentality does not align with the demanding nature of law firm work.

In-house attorneys often lack the same accountability as law firm attorneys. Their work is not subjected to the same level of scrutiny, and they are not driven by the same client demands. This leads to a different work ethic, which can be problematic when transitioning back to a law firm.

Law firms, especially those in the top tiers, understand the pitfalls of hiring from non-law firm settings and generally avoid it. Attorneys who leave for in-house positions often find it difficult to return to law firms, as their priorities and work habits have shifted.

Hiring attorneys from non-law firm practice settings rarely works out for law firms. The differences in work ethic, accountability, and expectations are significant barriers. Law firms are better off hiring candidates who have remained within the law firm environment, as they are more likely to understand and thrive in the demanding law firm culture.

They got inside the company and decided there was even more work they could refer to the law firm they came from. Instead of saving money, the attorney claimed they didn't feel confident doing various types of work. It wasn't right for her to do it, even though it was the same work she'd done at the law firm. She found all sorts of reasons not to do the work and called it malpractice if she did. Soon, he discovered he was spending $1.5 million a year on legal bills, which was more than before he hired the in-house attorney who was charging $350,000 a year. She kept finding additional work to refer back to her former law firm.

The idea that law firms need to understand is why rehire someone who learned not to practice law and instead give work to others? This is more common than not for attorneys who go in-house. It's not in law firms' best interest to hire these sorts of attorneys because there's more accountability in law firms.

Typically, someone might go in-house to do different types of work at various levels. You have people at lower, mid, and upper levels, including general counsels who forge relationships and manage teams. What I'm saying doesn't apply to everyone, but generally, in-house attorneys do not have the same level of accountability. Much of what they do is refer work to others.

Let's consider a common scenario: an attorney from a top law firm spends several years there and then moves in-house for a year or two. They might want to return to a law firm, believing they can get hired if they get an interview. However, they often struggle because they have experienced a different work environment in-house, with less stress, fewer hours, and more time with family. When they try to return to a law firm, they don't stay long because they miss the in-house lifestyle. The pressure and hours in law firms are intense, with tight deadlines and multiple clients, making it a tough transition back.

Law firms should also avoid hiring attorneys directly from the government. There are exceptions, like U.S. attorneys or those in specialized government roles, but generally, government attorneys work shorter hours and have more job security, which reduces their accountability. Many government offices lack energy and enthusiasm, with attorneys motivated by public service or political interests rather than the client-focused, business-driven mindset of law firm attorneys.

Government attorneys are often different from law firm attorneys, who are skilled at bending rules and thinking strategically. In contrast, government attorneys represent a single client and reinforce government interests. They might move to a government position to escape pressures, but those who come from law firms often find the transition challenging. While some government attorneys, like U.S. attorneys, can be good hires, most are not because their work environment and motivations differ significantly from those in law firms.

When law firms hire in-house attorneys, they might flatter them and be nice, but this changes when it comes to hiring them back. For instance, a former in-house attorney who referred significant business to a law firm found that the same firm showed no interest in hiring him after he left his job. This shows that law firms generally do not value hiring in-house attorneys who have referred work to them.

Clerkships can be beneficial right out of law school, but attorneys who leave law firms for clerkships often don't return. If they do, they usually don't stay long because they left the competitive law firm environment for a reason. Once an attorney starts practicing law, leaving for a clerkship might signal issues with staying in a law firm.

Attorneys who didn't work as summer associates in law firms during law school but secured clerkships often struggle to get hired by law firms later. Judges don't have the same hiring standards as law firms, leading to mismatches in expectations and qualifications. The roles and pressures in law firms are different from those in government positions or clerkships, making it challenging for attorneys to transition back to law firms successfully.

It's a very good experience. I did it, but at the same time, I think it made me a better attorney. However, it's not the same as being accountable to multiple people. It's different from being in charge where your word is final. You have to manipulate facts and things to please your client. It's also just different because when you're working for a judge, you don't do the same things you do in a law firm.

When judges transition to private practice, for example, they typically leave for a reason. They're not interested in working in law firms anymore and receive more respect as judges than they do as practicing attorneys. Some judges simply don't have the business generation skills that others might have in that environment.

I want to bring up a couple of interesting points. It's important for law firms to understand that there are different types of people. Some are interested in things bigger than individual clients, standing behind a cause, and being committed to public service to make their cities, states, and countries better places.

For example, I frequently see people from Yale Law School who, after graduating, do things exactly the opposite of working in law firms and only consider law firms later in their careers. It would be insane for a law firm to hire them because they almost never stick around—they're interested in something else. And that's okay. You need people like that. I don't think Barack Obama, other than a summer job, ever worked in a law firm. Bill Clinton never worked in a law firm. People who become public servants and attend great law schools are interested in other things, and law firms should not hire them.

The same goes for attorneys coming from accounting firms. Most attorneys in accounting firms, such as tax lawyers, make far less—often half—of what they would make in a law firm. They go into accounting firms because these firms are good training places for attorneys. People in accounting firms are often very likable and extremely intelligent, with degrees from great schools in tax and other fields. However, most of the time, they do not transition to law firms successfully.

Throughout my career, I've seen countless attorneys from accounting firms try to get into law firms, and it rarely happens. There are some exceptions, like those specializing in ERISA or executive compensation, but most other practice areas, particularly tax, are very difficult. Almost every large law firm will not hire attorneys from accounting firms. When I first started my job as a recruiter 25 years ago, I used to get resumes from people in accounting firms all the time. They had great backgrounds and schools, but they struggled to get jobs in law firms. It happens very rarely.

Law firms prefer hiring attorneys from other large law firms, especially for tax positions. When tax openings arise, law firms receive tons of applications, and they almost always choose candidates from other law firms.

Another important point is that law firms should avoid hiring attorneys with entrepreneurial backgrounds. Entrepreneurs are always looking for the next big thing and are interested in overturning the status quo. They are not likely to be happy working in a law firm environment. I am an entrepreneur, and I think a law firm would be insane to hire me as a practicing attorney because I am too interested in other things. Entrepreneurs are not satisfied with the status quo, and they always seek different opportunities.

Similarly, hiring someone with a public interest background is not ideal for a law firm. These individuals are programmed differently. When they look around a law firm, they often question why they are working so many hours when they could be doing something else. I experienced this myself. When I was in law school, I had an asphalt business that allowed me to make as much money working four months a year as I would as a first-year associate in a law firm. The entrepreneurial mindset does not align well with the demands of working in a law firm.

Most lawyers are risk-averse and focused, whereas entrepreneurs take risks and are always looking for new opportunities. True attorneys are not good entrepreneurs, and if they fail as entrepreneurs, they might be a good hire for a law firm. But a true entrepreneur will never be happy in a law firm setting.

The same goes for individuals interested in academia. Law professors, for example, are theoretical and not practical. They enjoy writing and teaching, and they do not like the grind of a law firm. Hiring someone from academia is often a mistake because they are not suited for the demands of a law firm.

Law firms should be cautious about hiring individuals with backgrounds in public interest, entrepreneurship, or academia. These individuals have different motivations and ways of thinking that do not align well with the demands and expectations of working in a law firm.

Law firms often hire from top academic institutions, such as Yale, but should avoid candidates with a strong focus on public interest law. These attorneys prioritize social issues over financial gain and may not align with a law firm's objectives. Similarly, hiring individuals with extreme political views can lead to conflicts with clients and colleagues. While public service experience may look good on a resume, law firms need attorneys committed to their work, not those with other priorities.

Additionally, attorneys obtaining LLM degrees, especially from less prestigious institutions, may not offer significant advantages to law firms. LLM programs vary in quality and often focus more on theory than practical skills. Foreign-trained attorneys seeking LLMs in the US may struggle to find employment without relevant experience or connections.

Solo practitioners present unique challenges for law firms. While some may excel in consumer-facing areas like personal injury or family law, those representing businesses may overstate their capabilities. Solo practitioners lack the oversight and collaboration found in law firm environments, making them less suitable for certain roles.

Ultimately, law firms thrive by hiring motivated individuals who prioritize their work. Attorneys should align their career goals with their interests, whether in academia, public service, or private practice. Hiring the wrong people can harm a firm's culture and profitability. Therefore, both firms and candidates must carefully consider their fit within the legal profession.

QUESTIONS:

Alright, so give me just one second. I'm going to pull up, no thanks, but ask questions. Just a quick aside, being on these meetings, calls, and watching webinars is awesome. Learning from others has made me a better person in my career and life. I love teaching because of my experience. I've been committed to running a business, working with law firms, candidates, and more for a long time. It's nice discussing real events and market workings.

I think it's smart being in these calls as you learn unique things. Few people worldwide do what I do. Learning from experiences is invaluable. It's when you're learning stuff very few know, literally worldwide. Let's try this one more time.

You're learning about law firms, avoiding wrong hires, and what attorneys should prioritize. It's vital not to waste years on the wrong path. It's crucial to align your career with your passion.

Your company may place you in a law firm if your regulatory expertise is rare and valuable. Some firms seek candidates with government experience. Exceptions exist based on unique skills and experiences.

Moving from in-house to a law firm may not be smooth. Challenges include adapting to billable hours, client demands, partner accountability, business generation, competition, practice area changes, and office politics.

Law firm work differs vastly from in-house roles. Quality expectations, client relationships, and business generation are critical. Seniority issues and competition for work are common challenges.

In a law firm, survival often depends on bringing in business. Attorneys who bring in work have more control and opportunities. Those who solely do the work are often at the mercy of rainmakers.

Two types of attorneys exist in law firms: those who bring in work and those who solely work. The former have more autonomy and success. Law firms need rainmakers to survive.

Attorneys who bring in work enjoy more flexibility and recognition. They shape their careers and have more negotiating power. Law firms prioritize attorneys who bring in business over those who don't.

Attorneys who bring in work are essentially self-employed within the firm. They pay the firm for brand and support services. This dynamic empowers attorneys to shape their careers and thrive within the firm structure.

The law firm operates as a hub for attorneys who bring in work and support staff. Attorneys are essentially self-employed, paying the firm for branding and resources. They need to network and offer assistance without seeking immediate returns to thrive. This approach requires patience and dedication, but it's crucial for career growth.

To transition from a solo or small firm to a larger one, consider the following: First, recognize that larger firms typically prefer candidates from similar backgrounds. To stand out, build relationships within target firms and apply even when no openings are advertised. Tailor your resume to highlight relevant skills and consider opportunities in smaller markets with fewer applicants.

Government experience may be viewed differently by law firms due to differences in work culture and billing practices. To address concerns, emphasize relevant skills and consider applying to firms with a need for your expertise. However, be prepared for challenges in transitioning, as firms often prioritize candidates with experience in their specific practice setting.

For solo practitioners seeking positions in law firms, there are hurdles to overcome. Billing rates, work autonomy, and revenue retention are key factors firms consider. Solos may struggle with adjusting to firm dynamics and revenue sharing. Therefore, firms may be hesitant to hire them, preferring candidates with experience in traditional firm settings.

Ultimately, success in transitioning to a law firm requires strategic networking, showcasing relevant skills, and understanding the firm's perspective on hiring. While challenges exist, opportunities arise through proactive engagement and a willingness to adapt to firm practices and expectations.

When considering a career shift to legal recruiting, do social introverts need sales experience? The answer is no. Successful recruiters prioritize connecting with individuals and recognizing their strengths. Social introverts excel at building business networks and can thrive in law firms, where interpersonal skills are paramount.

Recruiters don't necessarily need sales skills but must genuinely like people and have something valuable to offer. Effective recruiters establish rapport and motivate candidates, contributing to their professional growth and success.

Identifying potential hires who struggle to adapt to law firm environments is crucial. Attorneys transitioning from solo practices or startups often face challenges integrating into team dynamics. Red flags during the hiring process include candidates with minimal interest in law firm culture or a lack of relevant experience.

To optimize your chances of securing a position in a law firm, consider alternative strategies. Focus on smaller firms or less competitive markets where demand for legal talent is high. Don't limit yourself to major cities; explore opportunities in underserved areas where your skills are valued.

Avoid fixating on prestigious firms in oversaturated markets. Instead, tailor your job search to regions where your expertise meets a critical need. By aligning your goals with market demand, you can maximize your career prospects and find success in legal recruitment or transitioning to a law firm role.

Law firms seek focused practitioners from similar settings for hiring. Here's how to secure attorney positions efficiently. Maintain commitment to a single practice area, ideally from a law firm background. Smaller markets may allow some generalization due to client needs. However, firms prefer specialization from similar settings.

For government roles, solo practitioners with under five years' experience are viable candidates. Government jobs offer excellent opportunities often overlooked by job seekers. Every town and county hosts government offices, providing abundant employment prospects.

Considering law school? Don't limit yourself to paralegal or contract roles. Attorneys are in demand across various sectors. Instead, explore markets with less competition. Unsolicited applications to firms in smaller areas can yield favorable results.

Applying to law school at 65? While it's never too late, be mindful of age-related challenges. Focus on a specific practice area, understanding that preferences may evolve post-graduation. Summer internships offer valuable experience but may involve competing with younger candidates.

Foreign attorneys aiming for big law firms face hurdles due to preference for local talent. Consider pursuing a JD from a U.S. institution post-LLM for better prospects. Top performance in a JD program can offset foreign credentials, making candidates more attractive to firms.

In conclusion, this webinar provided valuable insights for LLM students, attorneys, and aspiring legal professionals. Learning how to navigate the legal job market can significantly impact one's career trajectory. Join us next week for more enriching discussions. Thank you and goodbye!