I was working with this candidate in California, mainly SF and Silicon Valley, but she was also interested in the East Coast, the Midwest (where she is currently based) and the South. As a result, my company had a West Coast Recruiter, an East Coast Recruiter, a Midwest Recruiter and a Southern Recruiter all working on her file. We submitted her to around ten difference cities, and she ended up getting around 15 interviews, mostly at elite boutiques and Am Law 100 firms nationwide. This candidate got interviews in Charlotte, DC, SF, Silicon Valley, Denver, Atlanta, St. Louis and Northern Virginia. This is despite the fact that she is only barred in Missouri, where she is currently based, and Illinois! The experience of working with this candidate solidified in my mind the idea that very strong corporate, tech transactions and / or data privacy candidates do not necessarily need the bar license of the states to which they are applying.
In terms of my own experience with the candidate, she ended up getting callback interviews at three top Am Law 100 firms in San Francisco. One of the positions for which she was interviewing was a General Corporate position, one was a Tech Transactions position and one was a Data Privacy position. She ended up getting an offer from the firm with the General Corporate position, but they wanted her to take a two-year class year haircut, because as mentioned above, the candidate doesn't have M&A or VC experience, and would probably require extensive training in these areas. The firm for which she was interviewing with the Tech Transactions team didn't end up giving this candidate an offer, because her background is not technical enough / she doesn't have a technical undergraduate or graduate degree. I think that this firm really wanted technical attorneys that also had sophisticated experience drafting IP agreements, which, to be honest, I think will be hard for them to find. Finally, her first choice firm, the firm whose offer she ended up accepting, had advertised that they were looking to fill a tech transactions / data privacy position, but in the end, the position ended up being almost exclusively data privacy! This candidate has, to my knowledge, substantially more tech transactions than data privacy experience, but she is an author for her current firm's data privacy blog, and she does have some experience in this practice area (although she doesn't have any of the relevant certifications). Still, the firm offered her an Associate position with only a one-year class year haircut! She is the second attorney that I place recently in a data privacy position for whom a minority of her practice is data privacy. Just goes to show that data privacy is hot hot hot right now, especially in California, and attorneys with any relevant and sophisticated experience in this practice area may get some truly amazing traction at top Am Law 100 firms!
This candidate received the offer from the Top Am Law 100 firm for the data privacy position just this past Friday, and she accepted today, early Monday morning. She is so very excited to move to SF with her husband, and to lateral from an Am Law 200 firm to a top Am Law 100 firm, and in the cutting edge and exciting practice area of data privacy! I couldn't be happier for this candidate, and I know that she will excel at her new firm home!