Cloaking! What is it good for?
"...Absolutely nothin! Say it, say it, say it again, now... [apologies to the late great Edwin Starr]"
About this time last year the blogosphere lit up with natterings about an uptic in lateral hiring. How would law firms hang onto their poachable associates? In an unfortunate imitation of the worst of twentieth-century geopolitics, some of the most venerable firms opted to wall in their talent, limiting the contact information about associates provided on their web sites, or scaling back information in law firm directories. Latham & Watkins' web site, e.g., provided direct numbers for partners but only general numbers for associates, and no associate bios or practise particulars.
By June, LawFirm, Inc. was reporting an improvement, or at least a promise of improvement, "within the context of data protection and data privacy protocols," among the AmLaw 100's top 10. And top blawgers acknowledge a movement toward greater transparency throughout 2005.
But as yet another fiscal year turns over, Law.com still headlines with "Cloaking...", the cyber-term for playing hide-and-seek with key information. One signal that the term and practise is standard and persists, is that everyone knows the code. That is, any firm that resorts to cloaking pretty much sends an engraved invitation to recruiters - like carrion to buzzards in the desert. It's true that efforts have been made. At the Latham & Watkins' site there's more associate 411 now - but you still can't find it without a map.
That's a waste of any firm's investment in its own future. Lateral hiring is a serious concern, certainly, and the consequences can be far-reaching. But outside counsel is a boon only when and if in-house resources have been fully advantaged, and when imported talent fills practise area gaps and meshes with a firm's existing dynamic. The costs of attrition are too high not to go deep for talent, before going wide. And the more that partner-worthy associates are put to work on high-visibility matters for core clients, the less "poachable" they will be.
Besides, didn't you know? "Something there is that doesn't love a wall [thanks again, Robert Frost]..."
About this time last year the blogosphere lit up with natterings about an uptic in lateral hiring. How would law firms hang onto their poachable associates? In an unfortunate imitation of the worst of twentieth-century geopolitics, some of the most venerable firms opted to wall in their talent, limiting the contact information about associates provided on their web sites, or scaling back information in law firm directories. Latham & Watkins' web site, e.g., provided direct numbers for partners but only general numbers for associates, and no associate bios or practise particulars.
By June, LawFirm, Inc. was reporting an improvement, or at least a promise of improvement, "within the context of data protection and data privacy protocols," among the AmLaw 100's top 10. And top blawgers acknowledge a movement toward greater transparency throughout 2005.
But as yet another fiscal year turns over, Law.com still headlines with "Cloaking...", the cyber-term for playing hide-and-seek with key information. One signal that the term and practise is standard and persists, is that everyone knows the code. That is, any firm that resorts to cloaking pretty much sends an engraved invitation to recruiters - like carrion to buzzards in the desert. It's true that efforts have been made. At the Latham & Watkins' site there's more associate 411 now - but you still can't find it without a map.
That's a waste of any firm's investment in its own future. Lateral hiring is a serious concern, certainly, and the consequences can be far-reaching. But outside counsel is a boon only when and if in-house resources have been fully advantaged, and when imported talent fills practise area gaps and meshes with a firm's existing dynamic. The costs of attrition are too high not to go deep for talent, before going wide. And the more that partner-worthy associates are put to work on high-visibility matters for core clients, the less "poachable" they will be.
Besides, didn't you know? "Something there is that doesn't love a wall [thanks again, Robert Frost]..."
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home