What if I could take over the recruitment policy of a law firm for a day?
It’s a thought that occasionally crosses my mind, somewhere between conversations, as I listen to a young lawyer seeking a new position or a firm looking for reinforcement. What if, as a recruiter who daily works on matching people with firms, I could step into the shoes of a managing partner for a day?
Let’s imagine ‘Rosendor Law’ exists — what would the recruitment policy entail?
The application: anonymous and content-based
Biases often play a role at the beginning of an application process, sometimes without us even realising it. A name, a photo, an accent — they can shape our perception. That’s why I’m in favour of anonymous CVs. No photos, no names, just the content.
Various studies have shown that it works. Anonymous CVs reduce bias in 60% of cases and lead to a 40% increase in the number of diverse candidates being invited for an interview.
"Candidate profiles are more often viewed, matched, and invited when personal information is kept in the background"
I recently spoke with a young lawyer who was unsure whether to include a photo on his CV. My advice was simple: don’t. It’s about how you think and work, not how you look. Even on JustLawyers, a matchmaking platform based on anonymous candidates, we see the impact. Candidate profiles are more frequently viewed, matched, and invited when personal details remain in the background.
Degrees, motivation, and the myth of the perfect profile
When reviewing applications, I focus on two elements: the degree and the motivation. The degree shows that you have the intellectual background; the motivation reveals whether you're truly committed to making the leap.
And what about exam results? Of course, graduating magna cum laude speaks to dedication and analytical skills. But the reverse is less telling: just because someone has a lower average doesn’t mean they’re less capable. Sometimes, external factors play a role: balancing studies with a full-time job, lack of support, or simply not knowing that graduating cum laude is important in law.
That’s why I prefer looking at the subjects that reflect the candidate’s interests rather than their average grade. Someone who claims to be passionate about a subject but barely passes it is less convincing. On the other hand, someone who has studied the subject in detail and engaged with it, knowing that this is just the tip of the iceberg, shows that they’re truly interested. Because let’s face it: the real learning begins on day one of the job.
Assessments: only if they add value
Assessments can be useful, provided the objective is clear. I’m not a fan of knowledge quizzes, but I see great value in assessments that aim to understand how someone thinks, writes, and responds to critical questions.
However, assessments under time pressure often have the opposite effect, which is why I discourage them. I’ve seen too many strong candidates stumble over assessments where the software malfunctioned or where time pressure led to careless mistakes. A golden rule should be that anyone who takes the time to complete an assessment is at least invited to an interview to go over it and receive feedback.
Number of interview rounds
As a reference, the aim would be two interviews, unless the candidate asks to meet more people. The first interview would be with the partners and/or senior team members, and the second would be with peers within the team.
For a strong recruitment policy, we need to let go of the idea that the ideal candidate is simply a younger or similar version of ourselves.
The peer interview is not about judging whether the candidate is "one of them", but about asking informal questions. It’s meant to screen for potential deal-breakers, such as an unnecessarily dominant or arrogant attitude. The team interview is not about screening for "likability", but for a workable dynamic.
We need to abandon the idea that the ideal candidate is a younger or similar version of ourselves. Talent sometimes comes in the form of someone who speaks, thinks, or moves differently. But that difference is often what makes a team stronger.
Money is not a taboo subject
As far as I’m concerned, the salary should be clearly stated in the job vacancy along with the pay scales. Candidates who still don’t know what they’ll earn after three interviews? That would be unthinkable at Rosendor Law. Transparency from the start: no taboos, no awkward conversations afterwards. For senior lawyers, the growth trajectory is also clear: what paths are available, what structure exists within the firm, can you progress — and within what timeframe?
Offer and notice period
Before the offer, there’s a call to discuss all the terms. Only then comes the paperwork. No surprises, no uncertainty. After that, there’s a one-week deadline to decide.
Pressuring candidates to start sooner? I strongly advise against it. In most cases, the candidate has no control over it. A three-month notice period is a three-month notice period. I’m also a big advocate for allowing space for a mental break. A short break between jobs can work wonders. It’s a time when both mind and heart can realign with what lies ahead. It’s not an unnecessary luxury — often, it’s exactly what’s needed for a good start.
"A strong recruitment policy is about fewer assumptions and more conversations"
Conclusion: there’s no lack of talent, we just don’t always recognise it
Over the years, I’ve heard countless stories from candidates who got stuck due to unclear procedures or biases. Not because they weren’t good enough, but because they didn’t fit the typical mould. Initiatives like anonymous CVs, assessments that test reasoning and handling feedback, transparent salary policies, and human onboarding make all the difference.
A strong recruitment policy is about fewer assumptions and more conversations. Less focus on "the click", more focus on content and potential. Redesigning the process doesn’t have to be complicated. It just requires a different starting point.
Isabel Rosendor
Co-founder JustLawyers
🔗 Read the full article in Dutch on Jubel.be: Wat als ik het rekruteringsbeleid van een advocatenkantoor mocht hertekenen?