Unfortunately what you are saying is done by many recruiters in this business - however I'm a recruiter too and what I have written at 3.3 is how I approach the process with my candidates. That's just my personal opinion and I'm not saying it's perfect or works for everyone - just my personal philosophy.

Wait, so you think Cyril (for eg) is losing out on clients because Vahura works on secondment opportunities (along with other full time opportunities)?

In light of the record breaking year law firms have had revenue wise, that's some sound logic right there.

Also afaik, Vahura doesn't charge professionals, they charge the firm - how does the question of 'competition' arise?

I haven't seen a single HR consultant doing this. They always ensure that their client (I.e. the firm), who pays them, gets good deal. They don't care about candidates and will always nudge (push) the candidates to take the offer, even if they aren't happy about it or a low offer then what it should be. I've known of reasons like showing rosy future, creating competition, the generosity of offer, etc. Plus even ghosting a candidate after discussion for months, after conveying something verbally, keeping candidate in pay and ultimately giving a lower offer. What's written above is just a idealistic view and far from on ground reality. If you have a personal experience with a recruiter who did what you've written above, please share the name. The person deserves to get as many references as everyone can give him. IMO, if you know someone senior, go directly and then after getting some traction in the process, take help of senior to close.

This is simply not true. No such cool off period is strictly adhered to by at least the Amarchands, Trilegal or KCo.

This may have an iota of truth if you're applying to the HR (since they tend to sieve applications more mechanically -- for both better and worse). However, partners don't always care whether you've applied to/been rejected by other teams in the same firm, and this is especially true in the current hiring climate where there's an acute shortage of quality resources.

Some of the firms don't publish their apply to link or email address, or if they do then these are unresponsive. I hate using linkedin as you are restricted by what is there on your linkedin profile. I prefer writing to the hiring partner directly via email and with CV and some articles as attachments. When the email address of the hiring partner is not known to me then I have to go through a recruiter - I prefer going through a recruiter over going through HR.

On the same note I have not been able to find the website of Anagram Legal Partners. I noticed that this has been raised on another thread but no answer.

No one ever needs to go through a recruiter. However, the good recruiters make the process easy for you in the following ways:

1) Providing information and honest review of the partners / teams / firms they are scouting for. This enables candidates to make an informed decision along with doing their own market research on the relevant partner / team / firm.

2) Provide insight on the process and kinds of questions asked in interviews.

3) Follow up aggressively with hr / hiring partners when there is a lull in the process or feedback is pending.

4) Negotiate on the offer if there is a gap between what is being offered and candidate's expectations.

5) Mediate between the candidate and the firm / partner in case after joining there is friction or misunderstanding or just help bridge the gap from a communication and expectation perspective if required.

Michael Page, Options Group and Vahura (this is in alphabetical order with no clear preference).

Be careful when you're dealing with desi head hunting companies (Vahura is the exception) because they send your cv to firms without your consent.

It's like law firms - don't go by just the brand but find a good recruiter within these set ups and work with them hopefully in a strategic manner not just for your next job but in identifying your career goals and aspirations. A good headhunter should be able to match make and identify the kind of work / partners that fit your profile but also be a good fit culturally for you.

All the best!

I respectfully differ. People with experience would know that tier 1 firms usually have a 'cooling off' period of one year if you've emailed an application and haven't been picked. This means they will not look at your CV for one whole year.

In my opinion, it makes the most sense to first approach consultants to see if they're personally aware of (and have a financial interest in) a position for you.

Once all possible consultant contacts have been used, a direct approach won't hurt.

Besides, consultants also usually don't get paid if you've already sent your CV to a firm within the last year.

Put together a good and personalized cover email, and attach a well put together resume. The cover letter shouldn't be generic or too short, nor should it be too verbose. Make sure you don't make dumb mistakes (incorrect spelling of the partner's name, incorrect office/practice area reference, etc.); you'd be surprised just how often these mistakes are made and they will make you seem complacent or indifferent, or both, which would in turn not cast you in a favourable light. The resume should be sufficiently descriptive with proper jargon. Format it and avoid tacky styles that some so-called experts seem to peddle.

If you have the right credentials (good law school (yes, this matters even a few years in), good prior experience, and come across as reasonably articulate and well groomed professionally, you'll at minimum get a response from many partners. If you're actually good, you'll get called for an interview etc.

I have worked with ADEPT and Vahura in the past and have had a terrible experience with them, so I'll refrain from getting into specifics on how recruiters work.

If you have decent credentials, then, avoid recruiters. It might be preferable to simply speak to the relevant hiring partners. Given the attrition that has taken place, the entry requirements to get into a Tier 1 are considerably lower than they used to be (note however, that this also depends on individual teams -- some are still particular about the calibre of their joinees).