How can we work more efficiently and smarter? This is a question law firms continuously ask themselves. For example, consider the legal tech company Henchman, which drafts contracts faster and more efficiently thanks to the use of artificial intelligence, or the shift since Covid that allows firms to embrace remote working. But what about the recruitment strategies of law firms? What room for improvement exists in their hiring criteria?
Filling vacancies remains challenging due to a seemingly growing shortage of lawyers. In a conversation with the Head of HR at an international firm, I stated that there is a “shortage of lawyers.” She responded by saying there is no shortage of lawyers. No, the problem, according to her, lies in the recruitment criteria.
The classic recruitment criteria
Typical recruitment criteria in law firms include: good academic results, obtaining an LL.M., summer internships, office experience, expertise, team fit, and salary. With the exception of ‘team fit,’ these criteria are used as a filter mechanism for interviews. The percentage of lawyers who achieve at least a distinction and an LL.M. from a prestigious university is limited, meaning many potential candidates are automatically excluded.
It’s important to note that there is no shortage of first-year law trainees. Therefore, law firms can be very selective when it comes to fresh graduates. The “shortage” only arises from the second or third year onwards in a lawyer’s career. But why is this? On one hand, many lawyers leave the bar after a few years to pursue careers in other sectors. On the other hand, firms themselves shrink the pool of candidates by maintaining their stringent selection criteria from the first year onwards. Interestingly, the same selection criteria are applied regardless of whether someone has experience or not. It would make more sense to assess someone with experience based on their work performance rather than their academic background. Often, a lawyer with five years of experience is still asked to provide their academic results, while references about their current work performance are rarely requested.
It’s striking how ingrained academic results are as selection criteria in law compared to other sectors. Friends working in other fields who achieved high distinctions were never asked about their academic results during initial job applications, let alone after they had gained work experience. In those sectors, the decisive factors are motivation, drive, eagerness to learn, and insight. Firms that place too much emphasis on academic achievements fail to recognise these factors. This is already problematic for diversity and inclusivity, but more importantly, it results in much talent being overlooked.
Equality versus equity: the need for real equal opportunities
The legal profession values equality, where everyone has access to the same resources, but in doing so, they risk losing sight of the end result. What’s needed is fairness, where we consider what each individual needs in terms of resources to achieve the same result.
Interaction Institute for Social Change | Artist: Angus Maguire
One example of this is a promising candidate who had impressive results during their bachelor’s and master’s degrees but didn’t have an LL.M. Why not? They were accepted into the LL.M. program of a prestigious university but couldn’t afford the €40,000 fee. Despite their hard work and dedication, they were rejected by multiple firms simply because they didn’t have an LL.M.
Another anecdote involves a talented candidate who was the first in her family to attend university but struggled to secure an internship after graduation. Why? Because she hadn’t completed any summer internships with law firms during her studies. No one had told her how important this was for her CV. Many of her classmates had family members in the legal profession who could offer advice, but she didn’t have that luxury. Despite her excellent academic record, she was repeatedly rejected for not having the right experience.
In law, there’s no room for asking the “why” question, meaning these promising lawyers, despite having the same resources, are not able to achieve the same results. Why don’t they meet the criteria? And more importantly, what can firms do to address this? If law firms are willing to look beyond conventional selection criteria, they will uncover an untapped source of talent.
Diversifying young talent
In addition to missing out on talent, current recruitment criteria do not contribute to diversity within the legal profession. The focus on academic performance, summer internships, and an LL.M. as recruitment criteria leads to a virtually uniform intake into the legal profession. While firms like to showcase new hires who meet these criteria to their clients, this says little about the abilities of a trainee lawyer who, for example, hasn’t completed an LL.M. A specialisation year certainly adds value. Some firms are already setting a good example by covering the costs of a specialisation year. The bar could adopt this as a good practice for all firms that regard the lack of an LL.M. as a dealbreaker. This would lower the barriers young lawyers from diverse socio-economic backgrounds currently face.
Aside from the social importance of having a diverse team, investing in diversity is a long-term investment that pays off. Today, the composition of a team plays a crucial role in winning new business.
Conclusion: time to expand the talent pool
I will no longer use the statement that there is a “shortage of lawyers.” The problem lies not in a shortage of lawyers, but in the strict recruitment criteria that firms apply. Filling positions remains challenging because many potential candidates are excluded based on classic criteria, without considering their potential and personal story. If we made it standard practice to invite everyone with a law degree and solid motivation for an interview, we would uncover much more talent that is currently being overlooked. Furthermore, the selection criteria for someone with and without experience should differ.
By investing in young talent and looking beyond traditional criteria, law firms can also build a more diverse and inclusive team. This is not only socially responsible but also economically beneficial for the firm. By focusing more on motivation, eagerness to learn, and work ethic – and less on traditional criteria – firms can not only address the apparent shortage of lawyers but also better position themselves to attract clients. Or as they say in business: “Hire for attitude and train for skill.”
Isabel Rosendor
Co-founder JustLawyers
🔗 Read the full article in Dutch on Jubel.be: Te weinig advocaten? Of te strenge wervingscriteria?