Recruit to Your Official Legal Team Plan
David Garber
Principal and Founder of Princeton Legal Search Group: the most trusted name in legal executive search
By their very nature, hiring plans are fluid and subject to change. But you can’t alter your plan if you don’t have one to change. The art is being flexible while staying the course.
Let’s start from the beginning. The following questions may help you develop a plan:
Two of the most frequently changing dynamics we encounter are as follows:
One, an organization will have a compensation plan ready for execution and will bring it to market when a search is launched. The organization comes to realize it does not have accurate compensation data for its market, the search stalls and the organization needs to adjust the compensation (salary and/or bonus) to be more competitive. When this happens, momentum may be lost in building the talent pipeline, and the talent often moves on to other more attractive opportunities.
领英推荐
Two, and this issue can actually be more challenging than the first, an organization has unrealistic expectations of the market in terms of the availability of unique, specialized legal talent. For example, if a company is looking for very specific experience in a regulated environment in a very specific industry and will not consider non-industry experience, the pool of qualified individuals is likely to be very small. Having the flexibility to consider experience outside the industry or industry experience coupled with related practice area experience will broaden the search and yield more options.
Doing homework upfront regarding compensation in your geographic market and the availability of specialized legal talent in your market will help lessen the need for radical changes during the process. However, some adaptation to the market’s changing dynamics may be required during the course of a search. (See article, “Hiring Attorneys as a Reliable, Ongoing Process.”)
Compensation and incentive adjustments are probably the easiest tweaks to the recruitment process, assuming approvals can be secured. Moving beyond compensation, we have seen organizations focus their hiring requirements on what they need today, putting aside future needs. It is an easy temptation. We would encourage you to bring the plan back out and look at the five-year as well as ten-year trajectory. You might hire for today to alleviate a pain point but if that hire does not satisfy a long-term strategic need, you will have deviated from your recruiting plan. For example, hiring an immigration lawyer to address current employee visa issues would not be true to a plan that calls for hiring commercial transactional lawyers. (See also, “Strategies for a Successful Legal Succession Plan Part I: Cross
We have also seen companies respond to the market by blending their needs because they may want more than one skill set. If a company were active in acquiring other companies, for example, the need for legal operational experience would be attractive. If the company is really looking for an M&A attorney who happens to have legal operations experience, that would be a smart hire. But if that operational background is given precedence over the M&A experience, that’s an example of hiring for the needs of today. Those current needs may rapidly change. The longer-term needs identified up front will likely be the more enduring ones.?(See article, “Strategies for a Successful Legal Succession Plan Part I: Cross-Training” and “Strategies for a Successful Legal Succession Plan Part II: Stretch Assignment, Special Project and Developmental Opportunities.”)
It’s perfectly fine to adjust to the dynamics of the marketplace, but not at the cost of losing track or sight of the long-term vision.