Round-Up: Am Law 100 Job Listings

For my observations on this list and hiring at Am Law 100 firms, please refer to this post:  Firms Take Recruiting In-House and Other Am Law Job Observations.

Key: New jobs highlighted in green. If a firm removed any job(s), the firm’s name is highlighted in red.

— read. like. support. —

[ad#PostTech]

Firms Take Recruiting In-House and Other Am Law Job Observations

I love updating the Am Law job listings. You can really see the industry through the eyes of how its recruiting.  I will publish the list in my next post but I’d like to note some brief observations here. (Remember, the list is accessible by members-only whereas this post is public.)

Observation #1Firms Get Smart About If/When to Use Search Firm

Although I don’t note it on the list, many of the firms explicitly state that they are not accepting resumes from search firms for XYZ position. Sometimes it’s a firm-wide decision, sometimes it depends on the position.

Those are just a few examples. Personally, I think this type of information is great.  It helps everyone involved – the firm, the potential laterals, and the search firms.

I left my job at a contingency search firm in the beginning of 2009.  By that time, explicit announcements like these were pretty much non-existent.  This meant that candidates and recruiters didn’t know if a firm was working with outside agencies when filling a position.  Based on my conversations with candidates, they were hesitant to apply on their own if they thought they should be working with a recruiter.  (Perhaps the recruiter had a special relationship, had inside knowledge, or other advantages the recruiter may bring….).  Even stellar candidates – smart, friendly, high achievers, perfect matches – would question whether they could find a position without a recruiter.

On the other hand, as a recruiter, I spent countless hours trying to get in touch with firms about advertised positions only to find out – after plenty of phone tag – that the firm was not using recruiters to fill that position.  Or, worse, I spent countless hours – at the firm’s request – trying to find candidates to fill advertised positions that the firm knew they would be filling internally or through a referral.  Not only did the firm play me, it played all of those stellar candidates who may end up opposing counsel or co-counsel.  I had to tell those candidates, “Hey, it’s not you.  Here’s what happened….”

Recruiting fees are expensive.  However, they’re well-worth the money if a recruiter finds that perfect candidate who would never have applied on their own.  It’s about time that firms used recruiters for their true potential.

Observation #2Observation #1 Applies to Staff Attorney/Contract Attorney Positions as Well

More and more, I see advertised positions for staff attorneys, part-time attorneys, and other non-partner track positions.  (E.g., Staff Attorney, Staff Associate, Contract Attorney(!), Career Associate, Part-Time/Hourly Attorney, Staff Attorney, etc.)  This also makes me really happy.  A lot of these positions – and, therefore, the attorneys who work in these positions – do not get the respect they deserve.  By advertising these positions, the firms show that they’re open to candidates who need/want alternative work schedules.  In addition, they are including these attorneys as employees of the firm.  Regardless of the legal significance, the cultural significance is tremendous.

Observation #3… Those Non-Legal “Legal” Careers

Usually, I limit my list to attorney positions or something similar.  (I’ve been known to throw a few patent agent positions in there.)  I’m not sure if I’m simply looking harder nowadays but I’m seeing firms advertise many “alternative” careers – law firm management careers – that are J.D. preferred.  When one of these positions pops out at me, I’ve included it on the list.

There are a few positions I’d like to highlight: