Finally, we hear back. The firm was passing. Passing?? OK. It happens. Let’s find out why. And then we got radio silence. Many firms will never tell you why as they are too afraid of getting sued. Sometimes you get “not a culture fit,” but can anyone describe precisely what that is?
A week later we get a call: The firm wants to consider this candidate for a different office! The firm arranges for the candidate to go on-site for a three-hour interview with the team, including the lead IP partner. After all these years, I should have known. After what we hear is a successful interview, the firm dilly dallies. (Yes, dilly dallies. I don’t know what else to call it.) Finally, they tell us they want to offer the candidate a temp job to “try him out.”
However, the candidate decided to remove themselves for consideration. We received a letter from the candidate, who noted how they approached the entire process with patience, professionalism and respect, and expected the same in return. They went on to outline numerous unprofessional interactions with key leadership throughout the process. Tellingly, the candidate said they can handle intensity but will not accept disrespect.
Kudos to this candidate for stepping up.
PREVENTING THIS SCENARIO AT YOUR FIRM
We have a policy at Estrin. We do not knowingly put candidates in toxic situations. Having been in toxic situations in a previous life, I have seen that movie, and I know how it ends — not well, not ever.
How can you keep this scenario from unfolding at your firm? Here are some things to keep in mind.
Understand Candidate Concerns: Was This Cultural Fit or Mistreatment?
It’s easy to ask if the candidate simply wasn’t a “cultural fit,” or if they should have been more resilient. However, given the harsh language, hostile attitude and negative comments in a four-hour interview (that was scheduled to be three hours), this firm and other firms must recognize that some behavior crosses a line.
It's essential that firms know what their partners, attorneys and staff are saying in interviews. Unfortunately, many firms aren’t aware. How would HR know if staff members are actively warning candidates away? Employees don’t report it.
Address Bad Reputations Internally
Abrasive behavior from key staff damages a firm’s reputation. How many people in HR are aware of this? And what are they doing to address it?
Instead, the issue is often rationalized behind veneers like how the problematic attorney is a revenue generator. Or, how candidates need to be strong enough to handle tough personalities. Or that the agency is sending poor candidates.
It’s honestly inexcusable. No firm should accept or condone disrespectful treatment of candidates (or employees) simply because of someone’s role or revenue impact.
Understand the Cost of Extended Recruiting Timelines
The inappropriate conduct of certain attorneys and staff members is causing firms to extend their recruitment process unnecessarily. “Difficult” personalities are delaying hiring, as HR is forced to reengage in searches for candidates who may ultimately be deterred by insider warnings.
Time spent by team members interviewing over and over leads to depressed revenue for the firm and overwork by other employees. Each day the role remains unfilled is another day the firm loses potential revenue. This is not just a hypothetical — it's a direct result of the behavior that’s preventing qualified candidates from wanting to join.
Recognize How Firm Reputation Impacts Recruitment
If candidates are consistently deterred by negative experiences, the firm’s reputation suffers. Should the firm reprimand high-revenue producing attorneys who contribute to this problem? Yes.
A well-defined process helps set realistic expectations, allows both parties to learn about each other, and enables the firm to evaluate how a candidate’s strengths could benefit its goals.
The damage caused by these individuals is often more harmful in the long term than a poor overall firm performance review on Google Business Reviews. Word spreads quickly within the legal field, which thrives on reputation and community insight. Candidates talk, and many have shared with us that they avoid certain firms based on stories they’ve heard about disrespectful interview experiences or toxic work environments. High turnover rates and candid reviews on sites like Glassdoor speak volumes. Don’t keep using the excuse, “Only disgruntled employees review firms on Glassdoor.” Not so — the employee is not always at fault.
HOW TO FIX THE PROBLEM
Consider programs for negative behavior management. Years ago, anger management programs became a valuable tool for addressing excessive, unchecked anger in the workplace. A similar approach could be applied here to deal with employees whose negativity damages the firm’s reputation.
Why aren’t firms firing problematic staff or leaders? Often, it’s out of fear of losing revenue. But firms should make clear, from the top down, that disrespectful behavior will not be tolerated.
Make expectations public and train interviewers. Most employees aren’t trained in effective interviewing, and while most wouldn’t disparage their firm, a few can ruin recruiting efforts. Firms should avoid “stress interviews” designed to test candidates’ reactions under pressure. The interviewer is not a psychologist able to interpret reactions properly. These methods leave candidates feeling resentful and mistreated, which they may share with others — both in person and online.
Differentiate between “tough” and disrespectful interviews. A challenging interview that tests skills and critical thinking can be effective, but disrespectful comments and anger cross a line. Unchecked rude behavior, illegal questions and negative commentary damage the firm’s reputation and needlessly prolong recruitment.
Implement a clear, respectful interview process. Firms should establish a clear, respectful interview process for every employee involved in recruiting. A well-defined process helps set realistic expectations, allows both parties to learn about each other, and enables the firm to evaluate how a candidate’s strengths could benefit its goals. Proper interview training can make a difference.
Once, in my own role as President of the Legal Staffing Division of a $100 million-plus litigation support company, I was dismissed as “the girl who runs the temp division.” (I ran a division generating millions of dollars.) I took the matter to HR, and the entire executive team was required to undergo sensitivity training. It sure didn’t make me very popular! While it didn’t change every individual’s perspective, it brought much-needed awareness to the problem.
Implementing these changes will build a positive culture where candidates feel valued, employees are held accountable, and the firm’s reputation is preserved in the legal community. If you or your firm is experiencing toxic hiring, now is the time to stop.
