Fides have extensive experience in helping clients find the right talent within the highly competitive Private Equity-focused legal market. In this article, we provide insights gained firsthand from our searches, coupled with an analysis of the data we’ve gathered on lateral hires in the year to date. We offer a view on how law firms can best position themselves to secure the right talent and take their practice forward.

As discussed in our previous article, the London Private Equity market is at the forefront of the competition for market share among leading firms, with US firms aggressively expanding their presence. They have consistently recruited top-tier talent from both UK firms and international competitors. The appeal of US firms is most clearly demonstrated by the offer of significantly higher compensation, at times exceeding £2 million per annum, and surpassing the PEP of many UK counterparts.

Firms such as Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Sidley Austin, McDermott Will & Emery, and Gibson Dunn have strategically bolstered their Corporate and Finance teams with key hires, thereby solidifying their market presence. In total, US firms have made 11 Private Equity Partner hires in London this year. Their influence is also evident in revenue generation, with US firms outperforming their UK counterparts in revenue per lawyer. Of these 11 hires, only 3 came from UK firms, and for the most part, we have witnessed experienced partners trading one US firm for another, underscoring the dominant position of these platforms.

In contrast, UK law firms have largely adopted a more selective approach to lateral hiring, prioritising strategic additions over aggressive expansion. Clifford Chance is the exception. Nine lateral partner hires were made by British-headquartered firms in London, with four of these made by Clifford Chance in the first quarter. Five of these nine hires were from US law firms, with three being “first day” Counsel to Partner hires. This demonstrates how UK firms often target emerging talent when hiring from US firms, avoiding the high cost of more established partners.

Both Clifford Chance and A&O Shearman have made significant hires from US firms in the Private Equity space, demonstrating that UK-headquartered platforms can and do compete for more senior hires. The two magic circle firms have both attracted senior Private Equity lawyers from elite US firm Skadden this year, with the firm losing four Private Equity-focused lawyers to British firms without making any lateral Private Equity hires in the last five months.

As discussed in our previous article, Spencer Baylin, Clifford Chance’s head of Private Equity, explains that one of the key elements differentiating Clifford Chance from US firms is its full-service offering across the region. Bruce Embley joined the firm from Skadden, having previously served as co-head of Freshfields’ global M&A practice. George Knighton, whose practice focuses on both private and public M&A as well as Private Equity transactions, became a partner at A&O in 2008 and has returned to the firm after five years with Skadden.

While UK firms maintain strong relationships with domestic and European clients, they face increasing challenges in competing with the financial incentives offered by US firms. UK firms have built a reputation for excellence in specialised sectors that align with their ‘brand’. However, retaining top Private Equity talent has become increasingly difficult as US firms continue to attract high-profile partners who are seeking to ‘trade up’ to a longer equity runway.

It may seem that UK law firms are consistently losing out, but that’s not the entire truth. Maintaining an effective billing rate that attracts a US law firm while remaining profitable is not as straightforward as one might think. Firstly, there is a significant disparity in associate pay standards, which can be around 40%. Another important factor to consider is the substantial difference in rates within the market. The European market, in particular, has struggled to keep pace, with London being one of the few global hubs able to leverage rates nearly equivalent to those in New York. Additionally, competition for instructions among the top firms is fierce and heavily relationship-driven in the private equity sector. A search we recently completed on behalf of a leading US law firm serves as testament to this, with the firm seeking targeted references from work givers to ensure that the hire could effect meaningful changes through portable relationships.

The basis of this search centred on capability and relationships rather than a focus on output, which, in this case, was impressive but less of a driving force behind the hire. Fides is currently running a variety of searches in this area, including in London, Germany, the Netherlands, and elsewhere. One is a leadership position for a top 20 firm in London, while the other represents a jurisdiction opportunity for a top 10 UK firm in Germany. Traditional portability is not the motivation for these searches. The emphasis is more on alignment, existing practice health, and aspirations for growth in the future, particularly in years 2 and 3 of the new hire’s tenure with the firm.

In contrast, Fides is also operating on a Private Capital mandate in London for a rising US law firm that is more focused on transferability, the relativity of rates, and success in years one and two. This client offers generous rewards, with 50% of the compensation linked to performance. The base draw is appealing, but partners receive half their income as a fixed profit award, while the other half depends on year-end performance. This model can lead to significant financial gains but may also cause fluctuations in earnings. These varied approaches to partner recruitment reflect the footprint and strategies of individual firms.

In conversations held with candidates regarding these searches, lawyers have explained that growth in this highly competitive market is hard-earned, and a new platform must provide the right support to enable a successful transition. Additional capabilities in areas such as antitrust, tax support, and leveraged finance have been cited as important factors when it comes to providing a holistic Private Equity service to clients.

It is therefore crucial for firms to consider their current strengths and intended areas for growth when approaching the talent market. A focused approach to selecting candidates with the right experience will create synergies for both the platform they join and the potential for an increase in their billings. This presents both challenges and opportunities when making a partner hire.

Overall, US firms have been more proactive in lateral hiring, particularly regarding senior partners. They can leverage financial incentives and global market positioning to attract top Private Equity talent. UK firms, however, continue to make hires at all levels.  We have learnt that all firms can find the right talent in this space, provided there is a coherent strategy that utilises the strengths of the existing platform, matched with the skills and ambition of the right candidate.

Moves Tracker, compiled by Fides Search:

This article explores the drivers behind recent lateral partner hires in the London legal market with a lens on Private Equity and why the high rate of partner hires in this space seems set to continue. In addition, a case study of one UK firm’s positioning in the market highlights how London-headquartered firms can remain competitive in the face of aggressive US expansion.

In recent years, lateral moves within the private equity space have stimulated partner hires and stoked competition between firms, and we have seen record-breaking numbers of partners transition to a new home. January and February this year were no exception, with this period seeing the greatest number of partner moves in the London legal market since at least 2006. Private Equity continues to act as a catalyst, with 22 of the 155 partners moving within this time frame, counting Private Equity houses among their key clients.

US firms have made significant inroads into the London legal market by leveraging connections with their Private Equity clients. As a result, seventy percent of the Legal 500’s ranked firms for high-value Private Equity deals are now US firms based in London. However, the flow of private capital-focused partners from US to UK firms was reversed in January and February. Besides Fladgate, which hired a nine-partner team from disintegrating firm Memery Crystal, Clifford Chance emerged as the most acquisitive team with six partner hires in the first two months of the year, including significant acquisitions from elite US firms.

Four of these lawyers set to call the Magic Circle law firm home are Private Equity focused. Bruce Embley and Emma Ghaffari joined from Skadden, whilst Patrick Scott and Angharad Lewis left in-house roles at US private equity firms KKR and Blackstone, respectively. This reverse of broader market trends also corresponds with a change in the narrative for Clifford Chance’s fortunes regarding Private Equity lateral hires. The firm lost London Private Equity head Chris Sullivan, a Clifford Chance lifer, to Paul Weiss in December 2023. This announcement was shortly followed by his likely candidate for succession, Oliver Marcuse. In the face of this, Bruce Embley joining along with Emma Ghaffari is a particularly notable victory for Clifford Chance. Bruce was previously co-head of Freshfields’ Global M&A practice before decamping to Skadden in 2020.

According to Spencer Baylin, Clifford Chance’s new head of Private Equity, one of the key elements differentiating Clifford Chance from US firms is its full-service offering throughout the region, alongside a more economical business model. Baylin quoted in June last year: “There is no correlation between how much you pay partners and the service they provide to clients. What’s important to me is providing excellent service to clients, which means full service to clients when they need it, for value for money, at the right quality.” A coherent strategy and a commitment to functional and regional strengths backed up by targeted lateral hires is a formula that has arguably allowed Clifford Chance to prosper in a hotly contested market. Another recent accomplishment was Clifford Chance winning a place on the private capital panel for EQT last year. The firm is the only remaining UK law firm ranked tier 1 by Legal 500 for high-value private equity deals in London for 2025.

The battle for dominance in London is far from decided, as several factors point towards continued competition and shifting partnerships. As Private Equity portfolio companies continue to grow amidst increased scrutiny from regulators and growing deal flow, they are continuing to build out their in-house legal teams, adding more pressure on talent in the sector. At the same time, Hervé Ekué, managing partner of A&O Shearman, opined this month that “we haven’t reached the top” with regards to pay in the London legal market, indicating continued demand for the correct skill set – and high remuneration packages could further entice lawyers into making a move.

The private equity market performed well in 2024, and key actors appear cautiously optimistic about 2025, underpinning demand for relevant legal skills. Amsterdam-headquartered CVC saw €830 million after-tax profits, a 36% rise on last year. CVC predicts exits or realisations through trade sales, flotations, and other transactions will materialise “at or slightly above” the €13.1 billion realised in 2024. More bullish outlooks can be seen elsewhere, as in January, Nordic Capital announced the final close of the Nordic Capital Evolution II fund at €2 billion after an original target of €1.4 billion. Off the back of this success, the firm is now aiming for a flagship fund at €10 billion. Apollo and Advent, Private Equity houses with a significant presence in London, are both aiming to raise $25 billion for their new flagship vehicles.

One alleviating factor in this high-stakes talent contest may be that junior lawyers have paid attention to the continued success of the private equity sector and the high salaries on offer. There has been a notable decline in the interest of equity capital markets pathways at law firms and a corresponding increase in demand for private equity seats. According to the Financial Times, as reported by partners, one of the most sought-after areas of Clifford Chance for young solicitors is now Private Equity. Of course, it will take some time for the pipeline of new talent to impact at the partner level, leaving a finite pool to draw from.

As the latest figures for law firm partner moves demonstrate, demand and competition for the best talent remains high. Factors such as increased demand from in-house private equity teams exacerbate the issue, though the talent pool may adjust in years to come. In the near term, the continued strength of the private equity market and bullish hiring strategies of US law firms look set to drive lateral partner hires. However, the narrative of US dominance within the Private Equity sector has been challenged, and Clifford Chance may provide a model for other firms headquartered in London to gain ground. Considering the recent high turnover, the number of teams that have yet to move has diminished, increasing the challenge for those looking to acquire. The private equity market is undoubtedly one to watch when it comes to understanding the future of the London legal industry.

We look forward to further developments in the next eight months.

As ESG considerations become embedded in corporate strategy and investor priorities, the legal risks associated with greenwashing are escalating. Once an abstract marketing concern for many firms, greenwashing, defined as ‘behaviour or activities that make people believe that a company is doing more to protect the environment than it really is’ [1], has become a primary target not only for marketers but also for regulators and litigators alike. Firms that can translate regulatory scrutiny into proactive, commercially attuned advice are best positioned to gain the confidence of clients navigating heightened ESG expectations and reputational risk.

In recent months, enforcement activity has intensified across major jurisdictions, with regulators asserting unprecedented authority to crack down on misleading sustainability statements. In the UK, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has confirmed its anti-greenwashing guidance, effective from May 2024 [2]. These rules restrict the use of terms such as ‘sustainable’, ‘green’, or ‘ESG’ unless firms can robustly substantiate those claims. The FCA is also implementing a mandatory labelling regime for investment products, aimed at providing clarity in a space long plagued by ambiguous branding.

Australia has taken a notably aggressive stance, with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) levying a record AU$10.5 million fine against superannuation fund Active Super in early 2024 [2]. The fund had been promoting exclusion policies around fossil fuels and gambling that, ASIC later demonstrated, were not actually being implemented. This case, now widely studied in compliance circles, evidenced that superficial green branding without operational reality invites severe consequences.

Meanwhile, the European Union is reinforcing its commitment to regulatory integrity. In June 2024, the three European Supervisory Authorities – EBA, ESMA, and EIOPA – issued a joint statement calling for heightened supervision of sustainability-related claims across financial services [3]. The objective is to harmonise enforcement and increase scrutiny of how ESG commitments are communicated to markets.

France, for its part, offers a compelling model of regulatory assertiveness that other Francophone jurisdictions may soon emulate. The 2021 Loi Climat et Résilience established a robust framework for controlling environmental advertising. Companies in France are now prohibited from making carbon neutrality claims unless they disclose clear methodologies, offsetting strategies, and impact timelines [4]. This was not just regulatory theatre: in mid-2024, the Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) reached a settlement with asset manager Primonial Reim, citing failures to align promotional sustainability narratives with actual investment policy [5].

Meanwhile, environmental NGO Notre Affaire à Tous has targeted corporate behemoths such as TotalEnergies, alleging that their branding misleads the public about their genuine contributions to the energy transition. The lawsuit, filed under France’s 2017 Duty of Vigilance Law, initially faced procedural hurdles but was revived by the Paris Court of Appeal in June 2024. The court ruled that the claimants had satisfied formal requirements, opening the door for what could become a landmark trial on climate-related corporate accountability [6][7].

The rise in greenwashing cases is having a significant impact on law firms, as these matters span advisory, transactional, and dispute resolution practices. Corporate clients are increasingly seeking legal counsel, not only to defend against enforcement actions, but also to audit and refine their internal ESG frameworks proactively [3]. Questions that were once the responsibility of marketing teams, such as ‘can we claim our products are sustainable?’ or ‘is our environmental impact statement substantiated?’ are now being directed to legal departments under mounting pressure.

Furthermore, the international aspect of ESG investments necessitates legal expertise from both local and global perspectives. A company’s environmental claims made in one jurisdiction may soon need to comply with multiple regulatory frameworks, such as the EU SFDR regulations and the UK’s anti-greenwashing rules [4]. In this complex environment, leaders who can position their firms as thought leaders in ESG compliance, transactional, and litigation spaces will be best placed to win institutional mandates.

Greenwashing, once dismissed as a branding faux pas, has now entered the enforcement spotlight. For law firm leaders, this presents both a risk and an opportunity. Those who act now to deepen their ESG regulatory and litigation offerings will not only serve their clients better; they’ll future-proof their practices in a world where sustainability claims must be real, robust, and regulator-ready.

For more information, please contact Megan Sturdy, at megan@fidessearch.com. 

References:

[1] Cambridge Dictionary, Greenwashing Definition. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/greenwashing

[2] The Australian, ASIC fines Active Super $10.5m for ESG greenwashing, February 2024. https://www.theaustralian.com.au

[3] European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, ESMA, EIOPA), Joint Statement on Sustainability-Related Claims, June 2024. https://www.eiopa.europa.eu

[4] Taylor Wessing, The French Regulatory Arsenal Against Greenwashing, 2023. https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/interface/2023/greenwashing/the-french-regulatory-arsenal-against-greenwashing

[5] Reclaim Finance, A Step Towards Sanctioning Greenwashing in France, July 2024. https://reclaimfinance.org/site/en/2024/07/08/a-step-towards-sanctioning-greenwashing-practices-in-france

[6] Le Monde, La cour d’appel de Paris ouvre la voie à un procès climatique inédit contre TotalEnergies, June 2024. https://www.lemonde.fr

[7] Climate Case Chart, Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. Total, Updated 2024. https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/notre-affaire-a-tous-and-others-v-total/

The Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment framework is an initiative that falls under the regulations of the 2024 Legal Sector Code which has been promoted by the government to spearhead economic and social transformation to historically disadvantaged individuals in South Africa. This development has become a hot topic with key political figures voicing strong criticisms of the framework and other DEI initiatives. From my perspective the implementations of these new policies within the legal sector code will have a profound impact on how recruitment is conducted within the South African Legal market.

Firstly, there will need to be an added level of consideration relating to the new policies, from partners within firms to hiring managers and recruiters who will be sourcing candidates, in an effort to ensure these processes are conducted in adherence to the new regulations. Like most diversity and inclusion initiatives the results will depend not on the enforcement of policy but on the effort and mindset of parties responsible for enacting this change. Firms will have to check their existing biases and potentially face some uncomfortable truths within their practices in order to take the necessary first steps to onboarding top tier Black talent. Additionally, we are likely to see a shift in the rationale behind the answer to the question “What makes a good candidate”? For so long the answer has been clear cut, but as new policies come into force, firms will need to have serious conversations regarding how they would like to answer this question.

Search firms will have to ensure that they are up to date with the recent developments in legislation and current attitudes regarding their implementation. Firms need to keep these considerations in mind when employing recruitment companies to do their work, and search firms with experience and proven track records of placing candidates from a wide range of backgrounds, including Black South African’s, will be key to helping these policies translate into the creation of a stronger, fairer legal workforce in South Africa. This will apply not just in terms of sourcing these candidates but also in providing expertise and market insight on how to induct black professionals into these existing institutions.

Furthermore, with the Legal Sector Code placing an emphasis on the development of skills for black professionals we are likely to see firms taking a greater in the development of incoming candidates. We are also likely to see firms investing in the retention and development of their existing talent and further investment in their talent retention strategy as a whole. Well-resourced firms are already placing an emphasis on talent pipelines at all levels of seniority in order to create genuine long-term change. We feel this could be a catalyst for increased competition within the talent market specifically pertaining to individuals with a desirable skillset including established Black partners who are likely to be in greater demand. Also, one of the potential outcomes of this legislation is that we may see an improvement in the financial packages offered to desirable talent which will increase emphasis on development and career progression within firms.

Moreover, with the new legislation encouraging the promotion of Business Development, firms are encouraged to provide financial support and coaching to Black-owned legal practices. This could potentially lead to an increase in mergers and strategic alliances and more Black owned law firms in South Africa who will in turn require the use of search firms to help with their strategic hiring and long-term growth.

In conclusion, the introduction of the legal sector codes in South Africa will bring about a significant shift in established recruitment practices. Firms will be required to adapt their previous hiring strategies to fall within the scope of this legislation and recruitment firms will be tasked with the pivotal role of helping both established and emerging firms navigate these developments by sourcing diverse talent and providing expertise which calls for a thorough knowledge of the existing legislation and effort to act in adherence with them.

In recent years, there has been a noticeable shift in corporate leadership as more General Counsels (GCs) are stepping into Chief Operating Officer (COO) roles. This trend reflects the evolving responsibilities of the modern GC, who is no longer confined to legal strategy but now plays a central role in business operations, risk management, and corporate governance.

This rise is not accidental but a reflection of broader changes in the corporate environment, where the skills and knowledge traditionally associated with the GC position have become invaluable to operational leadership. Here’s a closer look at why this shift is happening, in which sectors it is most prevalent, and what it means for both GCs and the organisations they serve.

1. The Expanding Role of the General Counsel

Historically, the role of the General Counsel focused on providing legal advice and ensuring regulatory compliance. Today, however, the responsibilities of a GC have broadened significantly. GCs are increasingly seen as key business partners, advising not only on legal matters but also on strategic decisions that affect the company’s overall direction.

GCs are deeply involved in risk management, governance, and policy development—areas that overlap significantly with the responsibilities of a COO. As organisations face growing regulatory complexities and an ever-evolving risk landscape, GCs are ideally positioned to help navigate these challenges while maintaining operational efficiency.

2. Sectors Where This Shift is Most Prevalent

This trend is particularly evident in industries where regulatory oversight, litigation risks, and existential challenges are more pronounced. Highly regulated sectors such as financial services, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, and technology have seen a significant rise in GCs taking on COO roles. These industries require leaders who can navigate complex legal frameworks while ensuring seamless business operations.

Similarly, companies facing increased scrutiny from government agencies, activist investors, or public opinion, such as energy, telecommunications, and consumer goods, are recognising the value of GCs in operational leadership. Their ability to mitigate risks, manage compliance, and align legal strategies with business objectives makes them well-suited for the COO position.

3. Risk Management and Strategic Decision-Making

Risk management has traditionally been a significant part of the COO’s role, but GCs have extensive experience in managing corporate risks, particularly those related to litigation, compliance, and regulatory oversight. The GC’s ability to assess risk from both a legal and operational perspective makes them natural candidates to oversee broader business functions.

Their experience in making high-stakes decisions that balance risk and reward aligns well with the strategic focus required of a COO. In fact, many organisations recognise that having a leader who can approach risk with a legal lens can enhance the company’s resilience and agility, especially in highly regulated industries.

4. Operationalising Compliance and Corporate Governance

Corporate governance and regulatory compliance are key responsibilities for both GCs and COOs. With more companies placing emphasis on ESG criteria, the demand for leaders who can operationalise compliance and integrate these practices into day-to-day functions has grown. GCs, who are already deeply embedded in governance frameworks, are well-positioned to take on this challenge.

Moreover, GCs often work closely with boards of directors, giving them a comprehensive view of the company’s strategic goals and operational challenges. This board-level insight is invaluable for COOs, who are tasked with translating high-level strategy into efficient and effective business operations.

5. Connecting the Dots Across the Organisation

One of the core strengths of in-house lawyers is their ability to connect the dots across different departments. GCs frequently collaborate with teams across finance, compliance, HR, risk, and business operations to address complex issues. This ability to synthesise information and align cross-functional teams makes the transition to COO a natural evolution.

As companies become more complex and interconnected, the ability to bring together diverse stakeholders and drive consensus is critical. GCs, by virtue of their role, are skilled in facilitating communication across different areas of the business, making them effective operational leaders who can drive change and innovation while ensuring regulatory adherence.

6. A Unique Perspective on Corporate Culture

GCs bring a unique perspective on corporate culture and ethics, areas that are increasingly important in COO roles. As companies face growing scrutiny from both regulators and the public, having a leader who can champion a culture of compliance, transparency, and ethical behaviour is a major asset. GCs, who are often the guardians of these principles within organisations, naturally extend this responsibility when they step into operational leadership roles.

Furthermore, as COOs are often tasked with driving transformation and change management, the GC’s experience in navigating complex legal and regulatory frameworks can be invaluable in implementing strategic initiatives while mitigating risks.

Conclusion: A Natural Evolution

The rise of General Counsels stepping into COO roles reflects the evolving nature of both positions. In today’s complex corporate landscape, the skills that GCs bring, risk management, governance, compliance, strategic oversight, and cross-functional collaboration, are increasingly aligned with the demands of operational leadership. This trend signifies not just a shift in individual career paths but a broader transformation in how companies view legal and operational leadership as interconnected rather than siloed functions.

For organisations, having a COO with a legal background offers a unique blend of operational expertise and risk mitigation, making GCs an ideal fit for this evolving leadership role. As this trend continues, we can expect to see more GCs embracing operational responsibilities and helping to shape the future of business leadership.

If you would like to discuss how Fides could help with any recruitment needs you may have, please get in touch with Sershen Ingram – sershen@fidessearch.com

In recent years, a noticeable trend has emerged in the legal market. The relationships between elite firms and their clients have become increasingly robust, creating a level of resilience that challenger firms previously targeted to gain market share. The buzz in the market indicates the gap between elite firms and challenger firms is increasing. The problem for challenger firms is that they are not able to match the scale, deal sheet, or institutional relationships that elite firms possess to maintain client relationships across their global platforms. The adage “nobody gets fired for instructing [insert elite firm name]” holds true in this context.

Bridging the Gap: What It Takes to Compete

To make a significant impact on this trend and compete effectively with elite firms, challenger firms need to focus on several key areas:

1. Rock-Solid Client Relationships in the Home City:Building and maintaining strong client relationships in their home city is crucial. Firms must ensure that their local presence is strong and that clients have confidence and trust in them to fulfil their legal obligations.
2. Credible Teams in Key Legal Hubs:The scale and credibility of the team in key legal hubs are essential. Challenger firms must invest in building teams that are not only skilled but also capable of handling complex legal matters, hence credible to their clients.
3. Hiring Motivated Lateral Partners/Teams:It is vital to bring on board lateral partners or teams who not only own their deal sheet but are also genuinely motivated to expand it. These individuals should have a proven track record and drive to grow the firm’s business.
4. Sustained Growth Efforts:Growth should never be viewed as a one-time effort. Challenger firms need to stay in the market, continuously seeking opportunities and keeping the door open for new business. Persistent efforts and a long-term growth strategy are key to gaining a foothold in the competitive legal market.

There have been several moves in the past 6 months that showcase this – see some select moves below:

Willkie Farr & Gallagher

• Rüdiger Lahmeand Andreas Ruster joined from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan in Hamburg.
• David Huthmacherjoined from Hogan Lovells to boost their Munich office after having joined Hogan Lovells from Kirkland & Ellis in November.

Kirkland & Ellis

• Tobias Larischjoined from Latham & Watkins to open their Frankfurt office.
• Sebastian Pitzjoined from White & Case, Frankfurt.

Skadden

• Matthias Schudlojoined from Willkie Farr & Gallagher in Frankfurt

Eversheds Sutherland

• David Smith joined from White and Case, Frankfurt
• Matthias Kiesewetter joined from White and Case, Hamburg

In conclusion, for challenger firms to bridge the gap and compete with elite firms, they must focus on strengthening client relationships, building credible teams, hiring motivated partners, and maintaining a sustained growth strategy. Only by addressing these areas can they hope to make a noticeable impact in the ever-evolving legal market.

Hiring and interviewing – an impact sport. Some win, some lose, but the basics can be learnt!

At the core, executive search is a two-way street – especially on the lateral partner front. The candidate and the firm have to go into an interview with intention. Complacency and uncertainty fail every time; time itself is precious and a commodity that shouldn’t be wasted.

There is no perfect recruitment process, but the best firms and the best candidates approach interviews with strategy and intent. Success is based on three key things:

1. Impact,
2. Engagement,
3. Alignment of Ambitions.

Candidates should be aware that an interview is not just about getting an offer; it’s about finding the right fit. Successful careers often include sustained spells of promotion and personal development, therefore you must present in a way that reflects this. To firms, recruitment is more than just analysing a candidate’s credentials, past performance, clients, billables, team size, and so on; all of this is important, but ultimately, you are striving to develop a case that answers the fundamental question: why should they join your firm?

It’s all about impact.

Irrespective of whether you are a candidate or a hiring partner, your aim should be to leave a lasting, positive impression. Candidates should emphasise the most powerful elements of their experience and how those align with what the firm needs. Be genuine; standardised dialogue doesn’t work. Select the details you want the person opposite to really retain. For firms, that means making sure that the messaging about culture, growth trajectory, and strategy comes through loud and clear. Every touch point helps to form the candidate’s impression of the firm, and impressions created in this process tend to stick long after the interview is over.

Engagement is key.

An interview is a conversation, not a monologue. Both parties should listen as much as they can and thoughtfully engage the interviewers with responses that indicate understanding. Equally, firms must understand that a candidate evaluates a firm to a great extent and vice-versa. Remove distractions that interfere with listening, such as an inbox ping or a phone call, as well as those things that are present in the back of your mind. Try to eliminate all distractions and engage. Make eye contact and answer questions honestly; it will all make a difference.

Align your ambitions.

Speak clearly about the mission. Several firms in the legal market have quite ambitious growth strategies, but not every candidate will align with the vision of each. Candidates need to be clear about what motivates and inspires them when it comes to the mission of a firm. Use targeted questions to assess alignment on culture and strategy. Firms likewise need to articulate their ambition and assess where that new hire fits within that. The best firms don’t just talk about strategy; they link it directly to the candidate’s potential role.

The devil is in the details. Firms should consider a candidate’s experience, starting from their arrival. A well-coordinated welcome, appropriate interview setting, and the base ingredients like refreshments indicate professionalism and respect towards them. For the candidates’ part, it should be a given: show up on time, bring your best, and don’t underestimate the power of a summary at the close, highlighting the most topical points and flagging any concerns that need further consideration.

Feedback is paramount. Among the top reasons firms lose good candidates, poor communication plays a major role. Candidates must understand where they are, not only for decision-making considerations but also for personal development. Candidates need to understand where they stand, not only for their decision-making purposes but also for their personal growth. Those firms that give definitive, honest feedback – even when the news isn’t positive – maintain goodwill and their strong reputation in the market.

Thoughtful questioning enhances the process. Interviews should evolve with each stage: candidates should avoid generic questions and instead build from what they’ve already learned, demonstrating genuine curiosity about the strategy and culture of the firm. Firms, in turn, should structure their process in a manner that is respectful to a candidate’s time and recognises previous discussions. Asking the same questions repeatedly raises potential red flags and may lead to things feeling disconnected, whereas targeted follow-up fosters a sense of progress and engagement.

The best recruitment experiences are always those when both parties walk away knowing that they have found the right fit. By focusing on impact, engagement, and alignment, firms will find the best talent, and candidates can make the right career choices. The interview process shouldn’t be a transaction; it should be the beginning of a meaningful professional relationship.