Recruiters - bad idea for post-clerkship employment? Forum

[allisonslav]

I've heard some people say that firms don't like it when clerks use recruiters (they have to pay your clerk bonus + the recruiter fee), but others say that the money is chump change for a big firm and a recruiter could be the best way to get your foot in the door. Thoughts?

[bella07]

It really depends on your profile as a candidate, your clerkship and your target market. D.C. firms have it written into their contract that they won't pay recruiter fees for clerks. There are exceptions (like if you were clerking for a hot shot judge and were a star student). But I generally this is true. I heard it from 3 diff DC recruiters (as a fed clerk). I think it's also true in other markets. I tried to use a recruiter in a my market (where she had been in house and had connections from a decade) and was rebuffed by 2 firms where she supposedly had great contacts. I've also spoken with a partner and a friend who was in house recruiting at the largest firm in my (non-DC) market and they told me recruiters are useless. The only people that told me to use recruiters are recruiters or their spouses. Granted, if you have zero chance of networking in your target market and are just cold applying to jobs that you see online, maybe a recruiter is worth it. But if you're general lit (as most clerks are) and not some specialized area (IP, some sort of regulatory or transactional niche), you're not an appealing candidate for firms to pay recruiters for. If they really want clerks, they'll send a letter to your chambers, not pay a recruiter.

[flyoverlawclerk47]

A friend of mine who completed two clerkships (D. Ct. and COA) and is currently working at a V100 firm in DC said that most firms won't pay a clerkship bonus if you use a recruiter. With the potential for a 50/70k bonus, using a recruiter doesn't seem worth the risk.

[Anonymous User]

Yes, definitely bad idea. Did this as a clerk and highly regretted it.

[Anonymous User]

From the firm perspective, we almost exclusively hire clerks and in the rare occasions where a postclerkship applicant comes through a recruiter, the recruiter's fee is a major downside that always, always comes up in hiring committee meetings. I would avoid unless you completely strike out applying on your own, and even then I'd think hard before going that route.

Is it rational? Idk, from my (non-partner) perspective the fee isn't much compared to the clerkship bonuses. But if we can fill our postclerkship recruiting class without paying any recruiters fees, why wouldn't we?

[moxcoal]

I know several clerks, including myself, who used recruiters with good results. They are especially useful for firms that you don’t have connections at (whether through a network or friends). I’m sure cost is a factor but I feel some responses here are overblown. A lot of regular lateral bonuses are higher than 50k lately. Firms don’t bat an eye anymore (frankly, I don’t think it was ever a big deal for large firms; paying a recruiter is cheaper than paying for your summer program). They need talent and recruiters are an easy way for them to get it.