We are the exclusive agents for these candidates.
These candidates have all (1) approved in writing represented by us to your firm specifically, (2) acknowledged they have not applied through other means, either independently or through another firm, and, if they have, (4) have agreed we are their only agent, and (5) agreed to tell us if you contact them through other means.
We ask that you refrain from independently contacting these candidates as it would breach our contractual relationships with them and violate our legal rights. If you have previously hired any of these candidates without informing us, please let us know as soon as possible.
- The fact that you already know any of these candidates does not change the fact we are their agents. You may know the seller of a house but will contact their agent if you want to purchase it. A professional athlete may know a player on another team, but the team will still use their agent if they're going to speak with them about changing teams.
- The fact that they may have applied to work with you in the past does not change the fact we are now their agent. Just because someone spoke with you in the past, or you know them, does not mean they are not entitled to use us for their search. They may look at many firms and have agreed that all contact must be through us. This protects their ability to have us negotiate for and represent them and their interests.
- That they may have inadvertently applied after we submitted them does not change that we are their agent. We represent candidates if they are still in their account with us. They also agree to inform us if an employer asks them to remove an account.
- The fact that a recruiter you know submitted them after we did does not change the fact we are their agent. Recruiters inside of firms have friends that are recruiters outside of firms. We are the candidate's agent, and they have warranted they are only authorizing us to contact you. Any previous or subsequent contact is void if they come through us or if someone is lying.
- We have been hired to represent the candidate, and they have an agent. The fact that you did not review our introduction and hired them later remains the fact we are their agent. If you hire them without reviewing anything, we are still their agent.
- The fact that the submission was "unsolicited" does not change the fact we are their agent. Most law firms are good fits for different types of candidates in various specialties. There is no other way to find fits than through such submissions. Over 85% of the firms that hire our candidates have no openings. This is how the business works.
- The fact that you did not have a job opening does not change the fact we are their agent.
- The fact you do not usually use recruiters does not change the fact we are their agents. This does not change the fact the candidate is coming with an agent.
- The fact that we do not have a "formal" or updated agreement does not change this agency relationship. As discussed below, a long body of law supports placement fees without formal contracts regardless of a formal agreement. The terms of all placements with firms have been the same at 25% of the attorney's annual salary for over 50+ years in the legal industry.
- Requesting candidates terminate their relationship with BCG Attorney Search so you can contact them independently will not change the fact that BCG is the procuring cause of your firm hiring this candidate and their agent. Doing this interferes with our relationship with our candidates and is actionable.
Under contract law, any party that is unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution, meaning that if you hire a BCG candidate without notifying us, we are entitled to recover our fees. Asking candidates to lie about their hiring process is also actionable.
Additionally, interfering with our agreements with our candidates interferes with the prospective economic advantage we would have from placing them at another firm.
The Concept of Agency in the Legal Placement Industry Applies to Our Relationship with These Candidates
As in every industry—law, business, entertainment, sports, real estate, and more—we are agents for attorneys who engage us to find jobs. Just as you would not think of contacting the owner of a home or office building directly and cutting out the real estate agent, we are entitled legally to the same courtesy. This courtesy is extended to agents in most industries and applies here. All professional athletes, entertainers, musicians, union members, and others have agents. Attorneys are entitled to and have the same. A sports team would not consider contacting an athlete without going through their agent, and our candidates are entitled to the same courtesy.
Payment for Introduction and Recruitment Efforts
While we state our fees in our submissions, every attorney and law firm knows they are paid by law firms and what they are. For the past 50+ years, the standard fee paid by law firms that hire candidates recommended by a placement firm has been 25%. It has always been the same, and in the 25+ years we have been in business, the only law firms that have asked about our fees are typically solo practitioners or small rural law firms of a few attorneys.
Our Livelihood and Ability to Help Attorneys
Depend on Fair Dealing
We have over 200 employees responsible for finding attorneys and matching them with firms like yours. It costs BCG tens of millions annually to attract, service, and place attorneys.
- When law firms contact and hire attorneys without paying us damages our company and employees provide firms with free economic benefits. We are not compensated for the cost of attracting candidates, our staff, our infrastructure, our advertising, nurturing the candidate, researching jobs, researching firms, or promoting your firm instead of other alternatives. In contrast, you hire our candidates and can put them to work, earning you money immediately. That is not fair to us.
- It also interferes with our candidate relationships and ability to place them with firms that play fairly and do not break the rules. Furthermore, this breaches our contractual relationships with our candidates. When you hire candidates without letting us know, we lose money we would make from placing the candidate somewhere else. Our investment in time and resources in attracting, nurturing, and researching the market for that candidate needs to be recouped. This also undermines our contractual relationship with our candidates.
We always find out when this occurs. If not resolved, it invariably leads to time-consuming litigation, resulting in us getting a judgment and payment. If you are curious about how the law protects agents like BCG Attorney Search, you can review it here: https://www.bcgsearch.com/ fairdealing.html
Any independent contact with these candidates for employment keeps our contractual relationship with them and the standard terms that govern this industry and agency relationships.
BCG Attorney Search Offers
Profound Levels of Help to Its Client Firms
Over 50% of the attorneys in the United States have contacted BCG Attorney Search in the past five years, and as we learn about your needs, we can help your firm in more ways than you may realize.
- BCG Attorney Search can send you candidates and prioritize your firm over others. If you hire and interview your candidates, you will be prioritized and receive the best candidates in the market first.
- BCG Attorney Search provides incredible positive public relations for fair-dealing firms. We are here to preserve, protect and build our client's brands and reputations. We promote your firm through profiles online and help them with positive reviews on highly-trafficked sites we own and maintain, such as LawCrossing, Top-Law-Schools, and BCGSearch.com. These companies comprise the most trafficked group of legal employment and legal forum sites worldwide. This priceless service brands you with law students and attorneys at all levels. We want to bring our market power to help your brand.
BCG Attorney Search’s Relationship with its Candidates and You is Legally Protected
A. Under contract law, anyone unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution.
If you hire a BCG candidate without notifying us, your firm is unjustly enriched by hiring the candidate without compensating BCG for the introduction and recruitment efforts that BCG provided. As the procuring cause of this hire, BCG is entitled to recover our fees. The legal concept of "procuring cause" in recovering under a quasi-contract in California is supported by several cases.
- One such case is the California Court of Appeals decision in Stoneman v. Barba (1948). Here, the court held that a real estate broker was entitled to a commission under a quasi-contract because they were the procuring cause of the sale, even though the buyer and seller had not signed a written agreement with the broker.
- Another case that supports the concept of procuring cause in a quasi-contract is the California Supreme Court decision in Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988). In this case, the court held that a job placement agency was entitled to recover a fee under a quasi-contract because they were the procuring cause of the job placement, even though the employer and the employee had not signed a written agreement with the agency.
Both cases demonstrate that under California law, a person who is the procuring cause of a transaction or event is entitled to recover under a quasi-contract, even if there is no written agreement.
The concept of unjust enrichment of an employer in California who hires a candidate through a recruiting firm referral and does not pay the recruiting firm is supported by several cases.
- In the California Court of Appeals decision in Roos v. Redwood Empire Bancorp (2007), the court held that an employer who hired a candidate through a referral from a recruiting firm was unjustly enriched because they received the benefit of the referral without compensating the recruiting firm.
- In the California Court of Appeals decision in Bernard v. Kay-Dix Ranch, Inc. (1962), the court held that an employer who hired a candidate through a referral from a recruiting firm was unjustly enriched because they received the benefit of the referral without paying the agreed-upon fee to the recruiting firm.
These cases demonstrate that under California law, an employer who hires a candidate through a referral from a recruiting firm and does not pay the recruiting firm is unjustly enriched and must make restitution.
B. Interfering with our agreements with our candidates interferes with the prospective economic advantage we would have from placing them at another firm.
The concepts of interference with prospective economic advantage in the hiring of a candidate through an employment agency and not paying a fee are supported by several California cases.
- In the California Court of Appeals decision in Trugreen Landcare, LLC v. Law Offices of Gary S. Charlip (2013), the court held that an employer who hired a candidate through an employment agency and did not pay the agreed-upon fee interfered with the employment agency's prospective economic advantage by depriving them of the opportunity to earn the fee.
- In the Court of Appeals decision in Pacific Lumber Co. v. State of California (2006), the court held that an employer who hired a candidate through an employment agency and did not pay the agreed-upon fee was liable for interference with a prospective economic advantage because they had intentionally interfered with the employment agency's ability to earn the fee.
These cases demonstrate that under California law, an employer who hires a candidate through an employment agency and does not pay the agreed-upon fee may be liable for interference with the employment agency's prospective economic advantage.
C. Asking candidates to lie about the source of their referrals is actionable.
In the past, it has come to our attention that some attorneys have asked the attorneys hired to lie. We are well-connected in the legal industry and have previously uncovered episodes of this.
Under California law and well-settled principles of the Rules of Professional Responsibility, attorneys are prohibited from asking anyone to lie—including their recruiting staff and attorneys.
This is because attorneys are required to act with integrity and honesty, and lying is a violation of these principles. In California, attorneys are governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct, which state that attorneys must not engage in any conduct that is dishonest, fraudulent, deceitful, or misleading. This includes asking anyone to lie or engage in any other dishonest behavior. If an attorney is found to have lied or asked someone else to lie, they may face disciplinary action, including the possibility of being disbarred.