Looking out for a job after 3 years in a Tier-1 (PPO). Which of them is the best to deal with? Any examples that stand-out where they have particularly helped anyone from this community find a job?
Most of these recruiters are utterly useless (except to the limited extent that you can use them to gauge vacancies at firms if you don't have a better way to do so, through informal networks). They are not helpful, have no pull with the hiring partners since they liaise only with HR (who are largely redundant and quite clueless too), and often mislead/lie (partly out of ignorance and partly cause they need to make a buck) to candidates about the roles/teams that they are trying to fill. I've seen so many kids try and use these loons and then have them ghost them after taking their resumes, only to call back months later when they want to discuss another "opportunity." I speak from direct experience too - when I moved from one Tier 1 to another, as an Associate, and before I realize how recruiters work, I also was taken for a royal ride and ended up wasting a lot of time due to their dillydallying.
Bottom-line: Do NOT waste your time with recruiters. In this vein, avoid others like Adept, Options and Michael Page. What you can do instead is to try and figure out vacancies through informal networks and then apply directly; it's always preferable to apply to someone in the team at mid level or higher, who can make sure that your application is at least seen (if it is any good). As long as you're from a good law school, have good academic credentials (3 years in, these still matter -- but I assume this shouldn't be an issue in your case since you mention that you received a PPO) and have a well put together resume and cover letter (keep it short but well written), you will be much better placed reaching out.
The generalizations in your answer and the confidence with which you seem to propogate advice with your half-baked knowledge of the role of how law-firm recruitments work, is striking. Perhaps you may not have had a good experience. That isn't however reflective of how the process really is. Not everyone is as privileged as OP to have received a PPO, or graduate from top-tier law law school (I'm presuming), or start their careers in a Tier-1 firm. To that end:
1) Your presumption that most recruiters don't engage with the hiring partners is flawed. As someone who has seen both sides of the process (as a professional looking for a new role, and a partner who recently hired for her team) I can tell you that a large part of what you have mentioned in your comment is inaccurate. Yes, it's true that the firm's HR team is also involved in the process but the relationships that most recruiters tend to build, are those with the hiring partner. The role of the HR in the process is that of execution - to assist the partner in interviewing professionals and on-boarding them once an offer is accepted.
2) To your point that recruiters tend to mislead and lie to candidates, I'd agree to the limited extent that yes - there are some bad apples in the bush, and yes I have had my share of bad experiences. Does that mean all recruiters are the same? Absolutely not. You can distinguish the good from the bad, right away. Choose not to engage with the ones that you know are full of shit. From my experience, the good recruiters - and I'm not speaking about companies here - but recruiters as individuals, tend to engage and build relationships with professionals on a human level - to the extent that a certain recruiter from one of the firms that's been mentioned in this thread, took the time and effort to actually understand my goals and aspirations before specifically pitching my candidature to the hiring partner in the firm - as opposed to certain other recruiters who just forward resumes en-masse to firms.
3) To your point about "dilly-dallying": it's not in a recruiter's interest to waste time. From what I understand they get paid by commissions, and therefore they are incentivized to close positions quickly.
4) Yes, sending resumes directly to someone mid-level or higher may work better than going through a recruiter - but that holds true for those who have alumni networks to rely on. I reiterate, what about someone who doesn't have these networks to rely on?
Lastly, let's just try to be nice when you speak about folks in other professions? At the end of the day everyone's trying to earn a living and I'd like to believe that all of us, whether as lawyers, HR's, or recruiters,, try to do so by doing an honest day's work. Calling someone 'utterly useless' or a 'loon' speaks more to your character and the myopic nature of your personality, than anything else.
Having: (a) been in a few teams; (b) helped in a fair number of hires been made; and (c) spoken to similarly placed colleagues, I think it would not presumptuous for me to say that my knowledge about how law firm recruitment works at least in relation to lateral hires is anything but half baked. Love the hypocrisy in your call for being respectful but branding solid advice as half baked.
Your romanticized version of a recruiter may very well exist, and my comment doesn't really suggest otherwise. However, it has been my experience, both first hand and vicarious through a sizeable number of friends and colleagues (both junior and senior) who have had to deal with recruiters, and almost all of whose experiences with them have been negative. Just to clarify, none of the people I'm referring to are at all lacking in credentials, and virtually all of them managed to get roles in Tier 1 firms by reaching out to people who are better placed to help. And by the way, not all such cold calls were through alumni networks (most weren't).
You mention you're a partner who recently hired for your team using recruiters. I've no idea which tier of firms you work in, but I'm glad it worked out for you. What I can say with a lot of confidence, is that most (and not all) recruiters do not function the way your post suggests - and this isn't a statement I'm making on the basis of my experience alone (far from it).
As far as your point on reaching out to someone who is mid level of higher goes, glad you've acknowledged that it is preferable. You are completely mistaken that this works only or even predominantly through alumni networks. Cold emails work even without alumni connections (none of the partners that have hired me went to my law school, and many people in my immediate network have had similar experiences). As far as someone who didn't go to a good law school, yes, my advice may not apply to them, but that is plainly apparent from my previous comment, and in any event, such candidates may simply not be the right fit for teams such as mine or many others.
The fact that all of us are trying to earn a living doesn't really entitle all of us to respect or niceness. I'm sorry (though I really am not) to say that most recruiters are quite predatory and one must exercise caution while dealing with them. In my opinion (feel free to disagree), such folks aren't the sort to whom I'll go the extra mile to be nice.
From what you're saying - it's difficult to believe that you may not yourself be a recruiter but representing yourself to be a law firm partner. Would be great if you could clarify which firm you work at - from the looks of it, possibly a smaller firm/boutique in which case your advice isn't contextually appropriate for this thread.
I'm in agreement with the comment from Tier1PA about recruiters. Honestly, I wouldn't have bothered to comment, but I think it's important at least for lawyers looking to move laterally to Tier 1 firms to be fully aware of the potential pitfalls of relying on recruiters to carry their water for them. You are correct in that there are good apples and rotten ones in every trade but recruiters seem to have a disproportionate number of the latter - and I too can vouch for the sort of bad experience that appears to typify interactions with them. You mention someone whose name was referred to in the comments above as a model (not in as many words, I will admit) recruiter but the sheer number of downvotes would suggest that that may be a one sided version of things.
Also, you are welcome to see things differently but there's nothing wrong about calling a spade a spade. Niceness is a good thing to aspire to in many settings but while giving practical advice on things at important as approaches to career, facts are more important than niceness and to this extent, dispensing with niceness / avoiding negative commentary about certain individuals / group of individuals is completely appropriate. One might even argue that to do so would be desirable.
Maybe next time, think twice before misbranding sensible advice. What you say about his / her experience not being representative would apply to you too. Thank you, and have a wonderful day.
For context, yes, I am a partner in a Tier-1 firm.
It's interesting that you choose to believe that I am misrepresenting myself, when all I'm doing is presenting a different view on the subject at hand. Just because you don't seem to agree with my views (and I believe I have tried to be balanced in my earlier comment) does not necessarily make them biased, as you seem to indicate. Nor does it amount to misbranding someone's advice. Since you seem to quite concerned with the apparent lack of thought in my comment, I'd like to return the unsolicited advice and encourage you to think twice before articulating your opinion in regards to what constitutes a biased opinion.
Perhaps I should have been clearer, my comment was not directed towards the specific set of Tier-1 professionals who graduate from Tier-1 law schools, since there's nothing in OP's question to indicate they are from a Tier-1 law school. My comment was directed towards the legal fraternity as a whole, while includes the Tier-1 law firm professionals as a subset. To that end, the underlying opinion in my comment is that if one doesn't have any networks to rely on, and chooses to engage with recruiters, they should engage with those who have their best interests in mind while they look out for your new role. As to such recruiters being in an underwhelming majority, you would agree that this is not necessarily factually accurate. Your opinions (and even mine for that matter) are merely subjective and contextual to our personal experiences, since I don't believe either of us has really conducted an objective study on the matter at hand.
I'm not going to engage with you on the benefits and pitfalls of engaging with recruiters. As you have rightly indicated, we are all entitled to our opinions, and I respect all opinions on this thread, even though some of them have been branded as "facts". However, choosing to be vitriolic in the manner we describe individuals in a profession is not really "calling a spade a spade". If recruiters were in fact "utterly useless" or "loons", I wonder why the industry (and this includes Tier-1 law firms) chooses to routinely engage with them in the first place? Don't get me wrong, I don't mean we need to prioritise niceties over being pragmatic in our advice, but surely there's a better way to do without being disparaging of a profession?
ADEPT is the best (they are the first ones to know of openings and first one to connect), then comes Avimukta, then others. Vahura has lost its sheen and its executives are pretty arrogant.
I have consistently heard that V is a good place to work. Don't know about the others. As for career opportunities, be careful about what you're joining for. If its legal recruitment that you're after, all of them can give you a good platform with perhaps V having an edge. However if you're joining for things like law firm management or equity structuring or whatever fancy marketing term they use for a service, you'll be quite disappointed. There's a certain founder duo who are now marketing 'coaching' for lawyers who are especially not taken seriously. Don't be swayed by LinkedIn posts or what their website says, please speak with somebody who is either inside their organisation or has left it. The law firm management or equity structuring or brand development speel they peddle are usually for start up firms or non-descript ones. I would be very surprised if you'll ever get to work for any of the top 20 law firms in India for anything outside recruitment.
Most of these recruiters are utterly useless (except to the limited extent that you can use them to gauge vacancies at firms if you don't have a better way to do so, through informal networks). They are not helpful, have no pull with the hiring partners since they liaise only with HR (who are largely redundant and quite clueless too), and often mislead/lie (partly out of ignorance and partly cause they need to make a buck) to candidates about the roles/teams that they are trying to fill. I've seen so many kids try and use these loons and then have them ghost them after taking their resumes, only to call back months later when they want to discuss another "opportunity." I speak from direct experience too - when I moved from one Tier 1 to another, as an Associate, and before I realize how recruiters work, I also was taken for a royal ride and ended up wasting a lot of time due to their dillydallying.
Bottom-line: Do NOT waste your time with recruiters. In this vein, avoid others like Adept, Options and Michael Page. What you can do instead is to try and figure out vacancies through informal networks and then apply directly; it's always preferable to apply to someone in the team at mid level or higher, who can make sure that your application is at least seen (if it is any good). As long as you're from a good law school, have good academic credentials (3 years in, these still matter -- but I assume this shouldn't be an issue in your case since you mention that you received a PPO) and have a well put together resume and cover letter (keep it short but well written), you will be much better placed reaching out.
1) Your presumption that most recruiters don't engage with the hiring partners is flawed. As someone who has seen both sides of the process (as a professional looking for a new role, and a partner who recently hired for her team) I can tell you that a large part of what you have mentioned in your comment is inaccurate. Yes, it's true that the firm's HR team is also involved in the process but the relationships that most recruiters tend to build, are those with the hiring partner. The role of the HR in the process is that of execution - to assist the partner in interviewing professionals and on-boarding them once an offer is accepted.
2) To your point that recruiters tend to mislead and lie to candidates, I'd agree to the limited extent that yes - there are some bad apples in the bush, and yes I have had my share of bad experiences. Does that mean all recruiters are the same? Absolutely not. You can distinguish the good from the bad, right away. Choose not to engage with the ones that you know are full of shit. From my experience, the good recruiters - and I'm not speaking about companies here - but recruiters as individuals, tend to engage and build relationships with professionals on a human level - to the extent that a certain recruiter from one of the firms that's been mentioned in this thread, took the time and effort to actually understand my goals and aspirations before specifically pitching my candidature to the hiring partner in the firm - as opposed to certain other recruiters who just forward resumes en-masse to firms.
3) To your point about "dilly-dallying": it's not in a recruiter's interest to waste time. From what I understand they get paid by commissions, and therefore they are incentivized to close positions quickly.
4) Yes, sending resumes directly to someone mid-level or higher may work better than going through a recruiter - but that holds true for those who have alumni networks to rely on. I reiterate, what about someone who doesn't have these networks to rely on?
Lastly, let's just try to be nice when you speak about folks in other professions? At the end of the day everyone's trying to earn a living and I'd like to believe that all of us, whether as lawyers, HR's, or recruiters,, try to do so by doing an honest day's work. Calling someone 'utterly useless' or a 'loon' speaks more to your character and the myopic nature of your personality, than anything else.
Peace.
Having: (a) been in a few teams; (b) helped in a fair number of hires been made; and (c) spoken to similarly placed colleagues, I think it would not presumptuous for me to say that my knowledge about how law firm recruitment works at least in relation to lateral hires is anything but half baked. Love the hypocrisy in your call for being respectful but branding solid advice as half baked.
Your romanticized version of a recruiter may very well exist, and my comment doesn't really suggest otherwise. However, it has been my experience, both first hand and vicarious through a sizeable number of friends and colleagues (both junior and senior) who have had to deal with recruiters, and almost all of whose experiences with them have been negative. Just to clarify, none of the people I'm referring to are at all lacking in credentials, and virtually all of them managed to get roles in Tier 1 firms by reaching out to people who are better placed to help. And by the way, not all such cold calls were through alumni networks (most weren't).
You mention you're a partner who recently hired for your team using recruiters. I've no idea which tier of firms you work in, but I'm glad it worked out for you. What I can say with a lot of confidence, is that most (and not all) recruiters do not function the way your post suggests - and this isn't a statement I'm making on the basis of my experience alone (far from it).
As far as your point on reaching out to someone who is mid level of higher goes, glad you've acknowledged that it is preferable. You are completely mistaken that this works only or even predominantly through alumni networks. Cold emails work even without alumni connections (none of the partners that have hired me went to my law school, and many people in my immediate network have had similar experiences). As far as someone who didn't go to a good law school, yes, my advice may not apply to them, but that is plainly apparent from my previous comment, and in any event, such candidates may simply not be the right fit for teams such as mine or many others.
The fact that all of us are trying to earn a living doesn't really entitle all of us to respect or niceness. I'm sorry (though I really am not) to say that most recruiters are quite predatory and one must exercise caution while dealing with them. In my opinion (feel free to disagree), such folks aren't the sort to whom I'll go the extra mile to be nice.
Thanks.
I'm in agreement with the comment from Tier1PA about recruiters. Honestly, I wouldn't have bothered to comment, but I think it's important at least for lawyers looking to move laterally to Tier 1 firms to be fully aware of the potential pitfalls of relying on recruiters to carry their water for them. You are correct in that there are good apples and rotten ones in every trade but recruiters seem to have a disproportionate number of the latter - and I too can vouch for the sort of bad experience that appears to typify interactions with them. You mention someone whose name was referred to in the comments above as a model (not in as many words, I will admit) recruiter but the sheer number of downvotes would suggest that that may be a one sided version of things.
Also, you are welcome to see things differently but there's nothing wrong about calling a spade a spade. Niceness is a good thing to aspire to in many settings but while giving practical advice on things at important as approaches to career, facts are more important than niceness and to this extent, dispensing with niceness / avoiding negative commentary about certain individuals / group of individuals is completely appropriate. One might even argue that to do so would be desirable.
Maybe next time, think twice before misbranding sensible advice. What you say about his / her experience not being representative would apply to you too. Thank you, and have a wonderful day.
For context, yes, I am a partner in a Tier-1 firm.
It's interesting that you choose to believe that I am misrepresenting myself, when all I'm doing is presenting a different view on the subject at hand. Just because you don't seem to agree with my views (and I believe I have tried to be balanced in my earlier comment) does not necessarily make them biased, as you seem to indicate. Nor does it amount to misbranding someone's advice. Since you seem to quite concerned with the apparent lack of thought in my comment, I'd like to return the unsolicited advice and encourage you to think twice before articulating your opinion in regards to what constitutes a biased opinion.
Perhaps I should have been clearer, my comment was not directed towards the specific set of Tier-1 professionals who graduate from Tier-1 law schools, since there's nothing in OP's question to indicate they are from a Tier-1 law school. My comment was directed towards the legal fraternity as a whole, while includes the Tier-1 law firm professionals as a subset. To that end, the underlying opinion in my comment is that if one doesn't have any networks to rely on, and chooses to engage with recruiters, they should engage with those who have their best interests in mind while they look out for your new role. As to such recruiters being in an underwhelming majority, you would agree that this is not necessarily factually accurate. Your opinions (and even mine for that matter) are merely subjective and contextual to our personal experiences, since I don't believe either of us has really conducted an objective study on the matter at hand.
I'm not going to engage with you on the benefits and pitfalls of engaging with recruiters. As you have rightly indicated, we are all entitled to our opinions, and I respect all opinions on this thread, even though some of them have been branded as "facts". However, choosing to be vitriolic in the manner we describe individuals in a profession is not really "calling a spade a spade". If recruiters were in fact "utterly useless" or "loons", I wonder why the industry (and this includes Tier-1 law firms) chooses to routinely engage with them in the first place? Don't get me wrong, I don't mean we need to prioritise niceties over being pragmatic in our advice, but surely there's a better way to do without being disparaging of a profession?
Thank you.