The Other Side of the Interview

As legal search consultants, we at Major, Lindsey & Africa play a unique role in the meetings between our clients (the law firms) and the candidates we present to them. To the law firm, we provide resumes, deal sheets, transcripts and writing samples. To the associates interested in new career opportunities, we provide market information and career counseling. But as the recruiting process evolves, eventually the parties meet in the event that will affirm or reset all expectations: the interview. Much has been written regarding how the candidate can be successful in the interview; however, less has been shared regarding how the interviewer can “win the interview” for the firm. Below are four ways in which an interviewer can come out on top in an interview.

Ask the Hard Questions

One of the most common post-interview reactions by a candidate is, “They didn't ask me any hard questions!” At first thought, this reaction may sound positive, but many candidates ' especially high-achieving ones ' are disappointed when interviewers do not engage them. Of course, this is not to suggest that candidates want to argue with or be put on the defense by the interviewer, but candidates do enjoy an opportunity to answer difficult questions rather than field softball questions that do not present an opportunity to impress. For example, after a recent interview, one frustrated candidate stated, “It was disappointing. I really didn't have a chance to impress them.” If that candidate does receive an offer from the firm, it may not be received with the same level of gratification as an offer from a firm that asked the more difficult questions.

Interviewers may believe they ask hard questions, but should consider how to provide even more opportunities for the candidate to be impressive. Nearly every interviewer will ask, “What types of cases or matters have you been working on at your firm?” Some candidates may respond to this question with a 10-minute speech that leaves no accolade unmentioned ' beware of this candidate. Other more prudent candidates will answer the question by simply stating, “Mostly securities matters,” or “Primarily private equity deals in the tech space.”

When given short answers by candidates, an interviewer should resist the temptation to respond by discussing the similarities and dissimilarities of the interviewer's practice. Instead, follow up with pointed questions that provide the candidate with an opportunity to explain in more detail. Ask about a complex legal issue that has arisen in one of their cases or begin a conversation about a legal doctrine that should be familiar to them. Questions that work well include, “What have you learned about depositions?” “How do you approach a diligence project?” “What is the most challenging thing you negotiated this past year?” and “What professionally have you not done that you are looking forward to doing in the next year?” These questions not only present the candidate with a chance to “show off,” but they also present the interviewer with more information by which to evaluate the candidate's analytical skills, maturity and personality. It's a win-win for both sides.

Candidates typically do not expect to spend the majority of the interview learning about the firm at which they are interviewing. They expect and understand that the first round of interviews will be focused on their professional experience and background. While candidates should expect to learn some initial information about the firm and the role for which they are being considered, those questions can be more fully addressed during later rounds of interviews.

Inquire about Personal Interests

In recent years, it has become near standard practice that candidates will include an “Interests” section on their r'sum's. Law firms may be surprised to learn how many questions recruiters field from candidates asking which of their interests they should include. Considering the thought they put into including this information, candidates are sometimes disappointed if interviewers do not address them.

While as a potential employer, the law firm may care about the personal interests of the candidates they interview. Under certain professional codes of conduct, however, the traditional wisdom is that a potential employee's personal life should remain personal. As tried and true as that wisdom may be, it is not a perspective that is shared by the typical millennial candidate. These candidates are progressively blurring the lines between their personal and professional lives, through social media, flexible work schedules, and the information they believe is customary to share with their colleagues. Accordingly, these candidates want to be asked about their personal lives in an interview with their prospective employer. If they are not asked any personal questions, they sometimes feel a lack of connection to the firm.

Of course, there are significant concerns to be considered when interviewers set out to ask personal questions. Interviewers should avoid leading questions about a person's age, family status, sexual orientation and any other bases on which employment decisions are not legally made. So what is safe and well received? Open-ended questions like, “What do you enjoy doing outside of work?” “What has been your favorite vacation?” or “What was the book you most recently read?” There is no understating how powerful an impression these questions make on a candidate who does not believe their current firm takes any personal interest in them. For example, following a recent interview, I had a corporate mid-level candidate from a top firm exclaim, “The partner asked me what I do for fun outside of work! I am going back to my firm and telling everyone that such a thing exists!”

The Significant Insignificant Factors

We are often surprised when candidates make decisions about their careers based on arbitrary and seemingly meaningless factors such as, “The partner had not read my resume,” “Their office was a mess,” and “They changed the schedule and some of the people I was supposed to meet did not show up.” Our clients put extensive time and energy into organizing an interview schedule for the candidates with whom they meet, and thus it is frustrating when a candidate evaluates a firm on these merits. Nonetheless, it happens and firms should be aware that associates are paying attention to the arbitrary factors.

There are several things that firms may do to avoid making the wrong impression. First, candidates are always impressed when interviewers have taken the time to review their r'sum' and other materials. From the candidate's perspective, this represents that the interviewer will also take great care and preparation when giving feedback as a supervising attorney. Second, if a key player in your hiring process keeps a messy or obviously disorganized office, then consider using a conference room for the interview. It is not worth having a candidate make an assumption about the firm or its working style based on one person's office.

Finally, associates can be unfairly harsh when there are last-minute substitutions and cancellations in their interview schedule. Despite a recruiter's best efforts to assure them otherwise, they take it personally and draw negative inferences about their self-importance or the firm's working style generally. These situations are unavoidable, but when it does happen, a simple explanation or apology should suffice rather than ignoring it and letting the candidate make assumptions.

Act in a Timely Fashion

Candidates in this new millennial generation are accustomed to immediate feedback. The expectations they have of receiving instant Facebook likes and Twitter shares is also applied to the workplace. While we know that it takes time to assemble feedback from all of the stakeholders in the hiring process, explaining to a candidate it will take several weeks for the firm to decide whether to proceed with them sometimes results in a loss of interest by the candidate. Of course we always try to keep candidates engaged in the process. But, assuming all other factors are equal between two firms, we find the firm that is quickest to make the offer usually wins the candidate. However, there are notable practices that firms may engage in order to provide some level of feedback while the candidate is awaiting a decision. Examples include specific feedback we may share with the candidate, such as, “The interviewer really enjoyed meeting with you, but the firm needs another two weeks for the partners to meet and make a final decision.” Other measures include direct outreach by the interviewers whom the candidate met with. These methods keep the lines of communication open and warm while a decision is pending.

If you want to win the interview with a potential candidate, the personal touches will make all the difference. In this day and age, associate candidates have different expectations that require more transparency and immediacy. Through engaging the candidate with meaningful questions and other simple actions, a law firm can make a memorable impression that can improve the likelihood that an offer will be accepted.

Derek Mize is a Director in the Associate Practice Group of Major, Lindsey & Africa and is part of the firm's New York office.