Ann Israel is the legal profession's Dear Abby. A New York legal recruiter since 1979, Ann is a past president of the National Association of Legal Search Consultants. Advice for the Lawlorn is updated every Tuesday.

Q:I moved firms and across the country about seven months ago. I was paid a signing bonus (less than a month's pay), a recruiter was involved in the move, relocation expenses were reimbursed and I was given three weeks paid leave to take the bar in California. I love the people at the new firm, but I have decided to shift practice areas from transactional to litigation.

Given these circumstances, how long am I obligated to stay at the firm in good conscience before I can leave for a litigation-oriented firm -- the standard one year or longer? I have friends at litigation firms who would like me to start yesterday, but I'm guilt ridden.

Also, in another vein, I'd like to ask if firms are more likely to hire a good candidate who just writes in with their resume instead of using a recruiter, because they will not have to pay the fee. Should I tier my job search, i.e., start out with a writing campaign and then hire a recruiter to target firms that have not responded to my mailings? Or is this a big waste of time and I should just hire a recruiter off the bat? I had a great experience working with recruiters last time, but don't like the guilt of knowing the firm has shelled out a lot of money to get you here.

Thanks for any advice you can offer.

Recruited

Dear Recruited: I really am at a loss for words. I'm a recruiter -- how do you want me to answer this question -- don't use a recruiter? Wouldn't that be a crazy thing for me to say?

Have I ever had a client say, "This is a lot of money we are paying for this candidate; we wish we could have found this person on our own." Yes, over the years I have heard this -- but not very often. More often what do I hear is how thankful the client is for the work we have done. It isn't uncommon for the client to take us out to lunch or send us a bottle of champagne after the placement has been finalized. They may be paying a fee for the candidate they have hired through us, but in the end, this individual is being hired in the hopes that he or she is going to make a lot of money for them. It isn't unusual to expect the new hire to earn back the fee many times over within the first month of employment.

There are times when using a recruiter is the best way to go, and there are times when using a recruiter is going to hurt you rather than help you. I have discussed in numerous previous columns the profile of the typical candidate who can be best served by a legal recruiter. I have also received e-mails asking me why someone with good credentials and currently employed at a top firm needs a recruiter. All they have to do is mail out their resume, and they will have interviews and offers. Indeed, this may very well be true.

However, if you pick the right recruiter (an entire column in and of itself), you are getting far more than someone who is just mailing out your resume to scores of firms. A skilled and experienced headhunter will take the time to interview you and find out not only what you are looking for but what you are all about. He or she knows the firms and corporations out there and has the ability to match you up with ones that will meet your practice needs as well as your individual personality needs. You will learn all about each firm prior to your background and resume ever being discussed with the hiring partner.

Before you ever go on an interview, you will discuss interviewing techniques as well as learn all about the individuals you will meet on each interview. After the interview, not only will you be debriefed but you will learn what each interviewer thought about you. If you are interested in this firm, your level of interest will immediately be relayed to the firm. Conversely, if you are not interested, you will not have to withdraw your candidacy, as your headhunter will take care of these uncomfortable matters for you. If you are rejected from the firm, your recruiter is there to help you take the blow. If it is interested in you, the recruiter will work with your schedule to set up advanced interviews.

When an offer is about to be extended, your headhunter will field it for you and help to negotiate the terms. If there are multiple offers, the recruiter will help to hold on to all of the offers for you and arrange post-offer interviews, luncheons, dinners, etc., to help you make this important decision. He or she will have all kinds of facts and figures to help you come to a successful job search conclusion.

A job search is long and difficult. If you are working, it certainly is nice to let someone else do all the legwork for you, and all you have to do is show up for the interviews and meetings. A good recruiter will take care of everything for you.

In your particular situation, I don't think you need a recruiter; in fact, a recruiter will hurt you on a search. There are a number of reasons that I say this. First of all, from what you have told us, this is at least your third job, and you are only at this firm for seven months. You don't want a recruiter calling firms for you where you might have more success with a write-in campaign. Secondly, you are planning on changing practice areas from transactional to litigation. This is not really something that a recruiter does because, essentially, you are going to be starting all over again, and legal recruiters don't place first-year attorneys.

Occasionally a recruiter can "retool" a candidate. For example, if you were a corporate associate thinking about becoming a real estate associate and you had top credentials and were working in a Biglaw firm, a recruiter would more than likely be able to help you in this current market since there is such a shortage of real estate associates and the two practice areas have some commonality. But you are talking about going into a completely different area of the law, and in this particular situation, a recruiter is not the way to go.

Lastly, it sounds as if you already have some job offers ("I have friends at litigation firms who would like me to start yesterday"), and I would strongly suggest that you take a good look at these opportunities. Since you already have approached contacts at these firms (or they have approached you), a recruiter cannot be of assistance to you there.

As far as how long do you have to stay at your current firm so that your conscience is clear? No matter how long you stay, you are going to burn some bridges when you leave, so I would suggest that you think about yourself and your career and decide what you want to do and then do it now. Why do you want to be a litigator? Have you really given this the thought that is necessary to make this career-changing decision? I know your current firm has spent some serious money on you, but if you know where you want your future practice to head, you need to start making those changes now. In the final analysis, you have to think about yourself.

In answer to your question as to whether "firms are more likely to hire a good candidate who just writes in instead of using a recruiter, because they will not have to pay the fee," I know that is not the case. It has been my experience that firms want to hire the best candidate, not the best candidate who answers their ad or, by happenstance, sends in their resume. The firms that do pay fees (the firms that work with recruiters) are budgeted to pay those fees. Sure, they are pleased when they find a great candidate without paying a headhunter's fee. But paying a fee does not enter into the equation when deciding which candidate they are going to hire. They hire the best candidate, not the cheapest hire.

Sincerely,
Ann Israel
President, Ann Israel & Associates