Sum people

  • Print
  • Comments (20)

Readers' comments (20)

  • I'm struggling a bit here. Why should the recruiter share the risk after the partner has started? At that stage the recruiter is out of the picture and the success or otherwise of the hire is down to the ability of the partner and the firm to execute their business plans. Furthermore, many of the "failed" hires will not be caused by performance issues, but rather the partner will not stick because the firm has been unable to successfully integrate the partner into the culture of the firm.
    Again, all of this seems to be predicated on the suggestion that the recruiter knowingly "sells" a dud candidate to the firm. Where does the recruiter get his information from? The answer is that he uses figures provided by the candidate which is combined with promises made by the firm as to the additional work that the new "synergy" will bring from existing clients. Moreover, any business plan that is produced will have been approved by the candidate as an accurate reflection of their practice etc. Either the candidate has been lying or he has an unrealistic expectation of the portability of his practice. The recruiter is in no position to judge that and is certainly not in a better position than the firm who is opperating in the same market and is in a position to do the necessary due diligence. At the very least, they should be insisting on, and taking up, references from all major clients, which is not something that a recruiter can do.
    I tell you what, I'll reduce my recruitment fees to 5% on the basis that the firm pays me that year after year for as long as the candidate is at the firm. To be completely fair, I'll make it 5% of actual remuneration for each year so that the firm pays me less if the partner's remuneration goes down due to performance issues. On the off chance that the partner is earning more 5, 10 or 20 years down the line, I may see an upside. Who wants to share the risk with me?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Re:
    "Hence, while ethical agents and ethical litigators will pursue best-case for their clients, the system allows for less scrupulous individuals to churn. This is exacerbated in recruitment because the industry is almost entirely covert, with virtually no information-sharing between clients. It is therefore almost impossible to work out if and where abuse is occurring."
    Is this a real issue or a non-issue? Are you saying that there is a real issue with unethical recruiters (and indeed unethical litigators) or not? As far as I can tell, there is scope in all areas of business and indeed life, for people to act unethically if they are that sort of person.
    If you are just saying "here is how recruiters could cheat if they wanted to" it is really a complete non-point. By your own admission, you have no idea at all whether or not anyone is actually acting unethically.
    The reason that I used the word "slur" in my last post is because it only becomes a point if you assume that your average recruiter is inherently more dishonest than your average litigator or, say, cleaner (I could write a long essay on ways that my cleaner could theoretially rip me off - she has me keys after all). For the record, my cleaner is a lovely lady and I have never had any reason to suspect that she would do anything unethical.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Haha, yeah I like that! Would certainly give recruiters a much greater incentive to help develop candidates' business plans rather than just clicking the 'Forward' button on their email...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Good article. I hope that our managing partner has read it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @ 3:04pm.

    Fair points, but perhaps we recruiters need to try a bit harder if "The recruiter is in no position to judge that...", because I think, with some effort and desire, we should be in a position to form some form of judgement. It's where the "consultant" half of the job title kicks in, in my opinion.

    "Why should the recruiter share the risk after the Partner has started?". Because we have just billed the client a not insubstantial amount of money, because we want to develop a relationship with the client, because 1/3 of hires - according to Mark's analysis - fail, because we feel we have a moral responsibility to the client and candidate, because there might be a better way of doing this, a better way of billing clients and, finally, perhaps because it's just the right thing to do.

    Would I do it? I am giving it some serious thought and pondering ways I could structure it without over complicating it. As it is I cap my fees because I think it's fair and equitable.

    Copy and paste this into your browser for a different perspective:

    http://www.recruiter.co.uk/opinion/2012/02/time-to-reward-retention-over-introduction/

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Re Anonymous @3.04pm.

    My point is that there is nothing to suggest that we don't feel a moral responsibility or that we don't act ethically. What would be more helpful is to speak to the partners that moved on and find out what happened. Anecdotally, even after the event, partners often talk about lack of support from the firm and a failure to integrate into the culture of the firm.

    I was being flippant about the point regarding the ability of the recruiter to make judgments. Of course we can, and we do. However, it is certainly the case that the recruiter is in no better position to make the judgment than the firm. Furthermore, there is another elephant in the chatroom which is the very real question about the degree of respect that lawyers in general have for recrutiers and their judgments particularly when they make be working with them on a contingency basis for the first time.

    On charging structure, we charge in the way that we do because it is how clients want to pay us. They want to pay for "results". Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that the "results" in question are simply the hiring of a candidate. The fees are substantial because they are, in fact, paying for the other 97% of work that recruiters do for no reward at all.

    I would be more than happy to be paid on some other basis of success, but still need to be properly compensated for my overall working year. So I will share the risk that a hire doesn't work out despite me acting honestly, ethically and consultatively at every stage, but would expect you to pay a higher rate when the hire is succesful. The great thing about this approach is that those firms that are good at making these things work would effectivly subsidize those firms that habitually fail to make hires work. I suspect that reducing the firms with poor success records would lead to even more speculative hiring.

    Alternatively, I'd be happy for firms to pay me on an hourly rate for the work I do for them, successful or not - but that would be a bizarre way to pay for services wouldn't it?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Statistics. None of the information shown demonstrates what is likely. It merely demonstrates what has happened in the past. If a coin lands tails three times and then heads once, its still 50/50 on being heads or tails. The stats also need to be taken into context with the failure of partners who had not been laterals. Have partnerships shrunk in the last few years? In particular practice areas that have seen general wastage - is there a correlation between shriking practices generally (eg real estate) and the fact that a higher proportion of partners have left? There might be. We also need to consider the reality that when undertaking statistical analysis smaller samples are more likely to show larger swings - so once you get into small practice areas there might only be a few dozen moves and as such is this sort of a sample worthwhile - the study refers to 15 different practice areas - some of which probably relate to only a few handfuls of hires. Is it worth also looking at associate wastage during the same period - is it just a case of last in first out rather than there being no particular fit. If this is the case there would be a correlation between laterals partners and lateral associates and it might not be related to hiring culture / the way in which hiring is conducted / the process - but rather something more obvious. The newbee has less of a network than the incumbant. You need a network to survive.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Nick has it mostly right but the larger problem is that this "report" fails to define success and failure in the context of lateral hires.

    Treating each lateral departure as a failure is sloppy and inaccurate. Departing partners may join a client and so cement the relationship they brought to the firm; they may retire leaving the client relationships they came with or they may, after a few years of profitable performance move to a firm better able to support them and their clients.

    Given that these reports constantly refer to the cost of "failed" lateral recruits it is rather shocking and plainly unhelpful that no effort has been made to determine the proportion of failures that actually cost the firms involved any money at all.

    Even on the existing method of reporting roughly 60% of laterals are deemed a success. Were one to add in the number of laterals who move on as "good leavers" and who had contributed to profit in their time at a firm the percentage would be a good deal higher.

    Mr Brandon's periodic reports are useful to prompt debate but are not safe to rely on when assessing the value of lateral hires.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @anonymous 10.38am

    As it happens, I agree with much of what you have said! As I have repeatedly said, it is up to firms to judge the success or failure of laterals for themselves, but as I have repeatedly observed, much of the time this is simply not happening. Business plans are rarely examined to judge success or failure; most firms I have spoken to admit to doing no retrospective analysis of success or failure, simply taking a 'gut-feel' view.

    I realise the word 'failure' is a contentious one, but my conversations with top HR directors are consistent in that they feel that lateral partners who last less than 4-5 years can be regarded as having failed, except perhaps in special circumstances (going to a client, introduced a good new client which the firm retains), given that, in the main, they have not yet made a meaningful contribution to firm profitability.

    Equally - as I also point out - staying is not necessarily a badge of success. I quote one managing partner who refers to many lateral hires as "drizzle-makers", which is a phrase with great resonance. I suspect many firms would admit that the majority of their lateral hires have not been transformative.

    As to examining the real costs of lateral hiring, that is practically impossible, especially given that most firms don't know themselves. I myself undertook something of a stab at the issue (featured in The Lawyer, 31 October 2011), but once again, the data only gives us some broad conclusions.

    Only one final point, I have never claimed that my researches are "safe to rely upon" (whatever that means...), but hopefully they do prompt debate. To my mind, lateral hiring is a delicate and complex business which will be unique to each firm and each partner. If I have proved that it is not the sure-fire solution to every problem faced by the growing law firm, then I think I have made my point, but somehow I think there is a long way to go before the legal market examines its lateral hiring addiction in more detail.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Look at football. Fans hate it when teams sign squad players but most lateral hiring looks like this - it doesnt improve the overall offerring. When Man Utd sold their squad players to the likes of sunderland, their squad players were still squad players even in an environment where you'd think they would shine - this is because the man utd team / coaching / set up raised them beyond their natrual abilty. Sometimes a superstar takes a step up in quality of team but becomes a squad player - look at charlie adam when he joined liverpool and most of the strong players from middling teams that have joined man city to sit on the bench or in the squad. Very few superstars from middling teams join other teams and become superstars - as they rely on system and team set up. Superstars from top teams are always superstars....well apart from fernando torres.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (20)