Are UK Patent Attorney Firms Being Too Picky?
Pete Fellows, Director of Fellows and Associates outlines the issues currently facing the UK IP profession in finding candidates.
There is a candidate shortage. Most firms we work with are struggling to recruit attorneys. This seems largely down to a supply issue. However, we do also have candidates that we are working with who are being overlooked for positions, but who do, in our opinion, seem eminently capable. To be honest it’s incredibly frustrating, we see excellent candidates who in some cases simply cannot get an interview due to an arguably narrow minded view of their suitability based on paper alone.
While I can of course understand that when a firm first starts looking to hire for a position it is natural to try to find someone as close to your ideal as you possibly can, potentially overlooking alternatives who don’t completely meet the set of goals for the role. However, surely there comes a point at which finding someone good enough to fill the role should override the imperative to find someone perfect? I know of firms rather nonsensically turning work away when a little more pragmatism would have allowed them to have someone doing that work for the last six months or more. I’m sure most hiring firms can think of instances when people they thought were perfect turned out to be far from it, and those they had some initial reservations about exceeded all expectations. For my part, many of the ‘riskier’ hires that clients of mine have made have really paid off and in some cases led to unintended positive outcomes.
So I’m going to call you out. Stop complaining about roles not being filled irrespective of the number of recruiters involved or advertisements placed unless you can genuinely say that you have been prepared to be radical in your thinking. Or, at the very least, be prepared to consider options outside of what you originally intended.
Let’s examine some of the obstacles. One of the main issues is that much of the recruitment is at or around newly qualified level, particularly for patent attorneys but also for trade mark attorneys. The problem with that is there are simply less people reaching that point at the moment, largely because graduate intake was down four or five years ago when they would have been entering the profession. The reason that finalist/newly qualified attorneys are attractive to firms is simply that they need minimal training but can be fitted into the infrastructure of a firm much more easily than someone with a few years’ post qualified experience. The rigidness of many firms’ pay scales and policies for promotion can also make hiring senior associates much more difficult. But in a market where there are no newly qualified attorneys, is constantly seeking them an exercise in futility? I am perhaps being a little bit flippant; there are of course attorneys who leave firms as they qualify and who, given the shortages, are able to dictate who they apply to. For most recruiters, unless we are working on a retained basis and are obligated to introduce such candidates to an opportunity we headhunted them for, we will be led entirely by their wishes knowing that they represent an easy win for us. We will select firms that we know will suit their requirements and ensure they are able to achieve their goals. For candidates at this level, this is a good argument for only using one agency to look for a position – they’ll work harder for you and you won’t be missing out on opportunities because the severity of the supply issues mean that all recruiters tend to know where the supply shortages are. And yet, the narrowness of the requirements given by firms means that candidates are often overlooked or simply not considered, subjecting a firm to months if not years (and I do mean that, candidates really are that difficult to find) without a suitable hire.
If it is not too patronising to do so, I would like to offer some advice to firms in this regard. You really need to decide what is most important when recruiting a role. If you need someone who can join and get on with things without being told what to do, you may need to find a way to accommodate more senior hires than you had originally considered. Yes I understand there may be political ramifications for your polices regarding your incumbent senior associates, but then you should be looking to change your policies. If hiring a peer would really cause that much unrest then you may well be in danger of losing people in any case. If your firm is worried about succession for the longer term then maybe you should hire more junior staff, more part qualified candidates or increase your graduate intake. I very much appreciate that this will increase the training burden and is in no way a short term fix. However in some cases if you had recruited at a more junior level a year or so ago when you first started looking to hire, then you would be much further ahead than you are now.
On a more basic point (we have had a recent incident of this), when a candidate more or less fits the requirements you have in place but you have some doubts about their CV, go ahead and interview them anyway. I appreciate it will take a little time but they may well be better than you think. We have had a couple of clients say they are ‘back to square one’ with their candidate search but they have not interviewed all of the candidates either we or our competitors have suggested to them. This seems a little odd, people can surprise you – some of the best hires I have ever made have been people that I have really had to persuade a firm to see but who have worked out brilliantly once in situ.
Finally, and possibly most importantly in light of the Brexit result, look overseas for candidates. There are only a limited number of firms in the UK who are visa license holders and yet these firms have, in my view, a huge competitive advantage. They are more able to fill roles ahead of the competition enabling quicker growth; they are able to steal the work from you that you have turned away because they have the staff to do it; and international hires bring with them an international network of contacts, potential corporate clients and foreign associates that a firm can tap into. Yes there are complications as to how you incorporate their qualification status into the firm, but these aren’t insurmountable obstacles by any stretch. The firms that do offer sponsorship and who have a track record of hiring overseas candidates are now very attractive to overseas candidates because of that track record. A very virtuous circle. They are best placed to attract these candidates ahead of their competitors. At this point in time, because not that many firms offer sponsorship there is still time to start doing so in order to gain a similar competitor advantage. But as time goes on and more firms realise that becoming a sponsor is essential to business growth, a lack of track record of hiring from overseas may mean that many of the best candidates will pass your firm by.
The issues for recruiters and firms with regards to finding people to support firm growth are stark at the moment. We need to work together on developing more innovative solutions to solve such problems, but in my opinion this needs to start with firms considering all reasonable options during any interview process. Unfortunately in some cases the candidates we are aware of (either submitted by us, or by a competitor) have simply not been given a chance to interview, which seems rather ridiculous given the dire straits not filling a position can leave a firm in.
I am frustrated (which I’m sure shines through in this article). I feel bad for candidates for whom I can’t see any reason why they have not being interviewed other than either short sightedness, or the triumph of hope over experience of what might be available.
Is my rant fair? Let me know what you think. I’m happy to elaborate on anything I’ve said here, just give me a call to discuss. Oh and if you are a newly qualified attorney I would of course love to hear from you!
Pete Fellows
