Friday, March 27, 2009

Job Search Resources

I've been meaning to write a quick post about some great job search resources that I've found recently to find employment opportunities. I have written previously about using RSS feeds from Indeed and Simply Hired, which typically capture most of the jobs posted on the paid job boards, but often miss many jobs posted directly on company websites.

The best combination I've found so far is Employment Crossing. This site has the best assortment of Career & Job Opportunities. There is a monthly fee, but for people looking for work (and recruiters looking for potential clients), there is not a better resource out there. They offer a 7-Day Free Trial that gives you access to all of the different sites (recruitercrossing, hrcrossing, etc.).

This company also runs Hound which only has postings from company websites and seems to be a decent resource - I don't know how much overlap there is between the opportunities posted on the two sites.

There is great value in uncovering opportunities that are not posted on the paid job boards because they typically have less competition. This is a great resource to find those all in one place.

Labels:

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Recruiter loses appeal in fee suit

Interesting story about a recruiter losing an appeal on a claim for fees against Blank Rome. Apparently the recruiter suggested a merger via e-mail 10 months prior to said merger happening through the aid of another recruiter who received a $730,000 (!) fee. Here's the key line:
The appeals court opinion said the "exchange of e-mails, which did not set forth the fee for plaintiff's services or an objective standard to determine it, was too indefinite to be enforceable."


I think that there is an understanding in this industry that if you present a candidate or group of candidates, a fee will be paid. However, as this case shows, it can get tricky when dealing with past submissions. Most contracts lay out a time frame (6 months to 1 year) for which a submission is considered "owned" by the recruiter. Absent clear language of what constitutes a submission (in this case it was apparently only an e-mail suggestion), and for how long a fee is owed on that submission, I have a hard time sympathizing with this recruiter.

It's a lesson that there needs to be some clear discussion of fees before submitting (or for that matter accepting submissions) candidates to clients and potential clients. My understanding is that a verbal discussion can be enough, but recruiters should make sure that everything is in writing to protect both themselves and their clients from potentially costly litigation.

Friday, March 13, 2009

Layoffs and deferments and rescindments..oh my?

Big law firms have been hit really hard with layoffs over the last two weeks...some 2,800 people in less than 14 days have been laid off. The folks over at Above the Law have been doing Yeoman's work keeping track of them. The question I and everybody else who has a stake in this are asking is "what does this mean for us?"

The good news is that there is still a lot of hiring going on, particularly outside of transactional work. A lot of this hiring is being done by small and mid-sized firms that are capitalizing on their lower overhead (and lower rates, probably). These firms have the opportunity to grab some really great legal talent, frequently at a discount, if they have the billable work to support it.

I have to think that generally, firms are being as selective and smart about their layoffs as they can. I think that the way mid-sized firms should really be able to capitalize is by recruiting the very best attorneys who haven't been laid off while there is some uncertainty and instability in the air. The best way to get those people is with a headhunter, which is why we are still busy despite all of the bad news.

Labels: , ,