In lateral partner acquisition, the interview process is not just a diligence exercise. It is an integral part of the firm’s pitch. Law firms can unintentionally lose out on the strongest and best candidates because the process is too slow, unfocused, internally misaligned, or unintentionally revealing in the wrong ways. Over the years, I have seen firms that would truly have been the best fit for a partner candidate or group, present themselves so poorly that they end up in last vs first place. And all these “mistakes” are fixable with some deliberate foresight, preparation and planning.
REMEMBER: THE INTERVIEW PROCESS IS PART OF THE CANDIDATE EXPERIENCE
In this highly competitive lateral market, in order to win, firms need to be prepared, focused, aligned and welcoming. At the same time the firm is evaluating the lateral partner, or group, the lateral partner is evaluating the firm. Every interview is part of the candidate’s experience and sends a signal about how the firm operates. The firm may think it is simply conducting diligence, but the candidate is experiencing this same process as a preview of what it would be like to practice there.
PROBLEM #1: FIRMS DESIGN INTERVIEWS AROUND THEIR OWN HISTORY AND HABITS, NOT CANDIDATE ACQUISITION
Many firms build lateral interview processes by historical default; who always gets included, who expects to be consulted, who is going to object or push back later, who is politically difficult to leave out. This is not process design. This is internal appeasement.
An interview process should never be assembled around who might be offended if they are excluded. In my experience, this results in too many interviewers, interviewers with no defined role or who have not been briefed, partners who are unreceptive to lateral hiring generally, or even worse, partners who see the candidate as competition.
What complicates this even further is that it’s unclear who owns the process and the feedback gathered is weighted unfairly.
PROBLEM #2: THE FIRM TELLS FIVE DIFFERENT STORIES
A lateral candidate should hear a coherent story about the firm, the platform, the opportunity, and the reason for the potential fit. This does not mean scripting every conversation. It means alignment. The risk of revealing major inconsistencies at the firm and turning off a viable, solid candidate is very real.
Here are some typical examples of inconsistencies expressed in interviews that have thwarted candidates from continuing to pursue a placement at the firm:
- One partner oversells the support the firm will provide, and another minimizes the opportunity
- Leadership talks growth while the practice partners sound ambivalent
- Compensation expectations are described differently
- Partners openly disagree on strategic priorities
When every interviewer tells a different story, the candidate hears the real message that the firm is not aligned.
PROBLEM #3: OVER-INTERVIEWING AND SLOW WALKING THE PROCESS
A thoughtful and winning process should not be endless. I have seen it happen so often, that “time kills all deals”. Strong candidates are likely speaking to multiple firms. A slow, repetitive, poorly sequenced process can signal indecision and totally wipe out the initial enthusiasm and excitement a candidate may have felt for joining a firm.
Here are some key indicators that the process is taking too long and should be shortened:
- Too many rounds that often lead to repetitive conversations
- Long gaps between meetings with no clear next steps
- Delayed feedback or no feedback delivered
- Unclear decision authority
- Candidates asked for more information without any explanation of where the process stands and next steps
THE ANSWER: A CONSTRUCTIVE FRAMEWORK NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED
The interview process should be intentional, sequenced , and closely tied to the business case. Before the interviews even start, firms need to define and share with the interviewers:
- The strategic objectives the partner candidate, or group would advance
- Who owns the process
- Who should meet the candidate and why
- What each interviewer is evaluating
- What each interviewer should communicate to the candidate
- What, if any, concerns are going to be disqualifying
- How feedback will be collected and then delivered to the candidate
- Who has the key decision making authority
- What the candidate should know and understand about the firm by the end of the interview process
The firm should know what it needs to learn and what it needs to communicate even before the first interview is scheduled.
In closing, a better interview process does not mean lowering standards or selling harder. It means developing and implementing a process that helps the firm evaluate the candidate AND shows the candidate that the firm is serious, aligned, and fully capable of supporting the move and providing an ideal platform and environment for the candidate to thrive and stay for the long term.
Firms rarely lose lateral candidates because another firm offers more money. Often, they lose them because the interview process gives the candidate too many reasons to doubt the opportunity. Slow decision making, unclear value propositions, lack of internal alignment, and overall weak and inconsistent messaging leads candidates to the competition more than anything else.
Posted In
