Part of Lateral Link’s series on lateral partner moves, Jonathan Birenbaum, a member of Lateral Link’s contributing team, gives his take on the advantages of a boutique law firm compared to Biglaw and medium-to-large sized firms.

As you know, Lateral Link is a nationwide law recruitment office for the largest law firms in the country. Jonathan Birenbaum is our New York office Director who focuses solely on lateral partners, client services, group placements, and associate placements in the New York area and Canada. Currently working in an arbitration law firm in Singapore He started as a litigator, working for the City of New York and the New York State attorney general’s office. He worked at two New York City firms as a healthcare litigator. Birenbaum shifted to legal recruiting, starting at a New York City boutique legal recruiting firm as a legal recruiter. He placed associates and partners looking for work in various law practice areas with boutique, regional, and Biglaw firms in New York, California, Toronto, and New Mexico. Birenbaum’s educational background consists of a Political Science B.A. at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a J.D. from New York’s St. John’s University School of Law.

In 2007, before the 2008 recession, I started as a legal recruiter. That year was successful until the recession hit. Hiring was slow afterward, so the owner encouraged us to broaden our work by creating a partner portfolio. This helped me to facilitate lateral partner placements with boutique, regional, and Big law firms, yet the recruiting process for each law firm size was different. Consider that difference and the candidate’s timing/scheduling needs when devising the best search strategy.

Regional and Big law firms will fly out potential partner candidates to their place of business to meet with the boss and executives. These people will vote on whether the candidate will join the partnership. Biglaw firms must deal with upcoming conflicts between the candidate and the firm too, and they can’t because of its large firm size. Midsize firms use a streamlined approach to hiring potential candidates. They focus on the candidate more to discover any conflicts between the candidate, his/her clients, and the firm. Discovered conflicts are resolved now before it becomes a hindrance later on.

Small or boutique firms operating in one city can gather the partner candidates together in the same office faster than larger firms as well as a quicker decision on job hiring. I worked with several Manhattan boutique law firms, and the hiring process began with candidate meetings with hiring partners and key executives. All candidates complete an LPQ, or a lateral partner questionnaire. The firm runs a conflicts check, a reference check, and survey the firm’s colleagues and adversaries who know the candidate.

Here’s an example: The first partner I recruited with a well-respected defense litigator who wasn’t making enough money. I introduced him to an Am Law 200 firm and a Pennsylvania regional firm. Both firms liked the candidate due to his national reputation, a key client he represented, and his strong history of collections and billables. Both wanted to meet him in person. After the interview, the Pennsylvania firm made him a non-equity partnership offer. The firm was able to offer this opportunity because the key client’s CEO and the firm’s managing partner met beforehand at the northeast headquarters. They discussed and resolved conflicts and the CEO signed off on the managing partner’s move to make an offer to the candidate.

The candidate received the regional offer and liked it. The compensation is more money than he is currently making. However, the candidate was hesitant to accept it because the New York Biglaw firm’s location is strategically pivotal to that key client’s success. Sadly, the Biglaw firm’s hiring partner could not match or exceed the regional firm’s offer. As far as conflicts, the firm was unable to remove any conflicts that may arise in the firm too. The lack of efficiency at the Biglaw firm plus the generous offer at the regional firm was enough for the candidate to choose the Pennsylvania regional firm.

What are the advantages of choosing a boutique firm? First, partner candidates can meet with several decision-making executives within six weeks. A Biglaw firm takes six months to a year to meet all the executives in the firm. Second, a partner at a boutique can advance quickly to a leadership title because there’s less red tape to maneuver. Third, the boutique allows a unique opportunity for partners to work alongside associates and staff, which may lead to greater profitability and a rewarding experience.