When a law firm has an important position to fill, the interview process should move in an organized sequence.
The firm should review the applications, select a group for first-round interviews, interview those candidates on the same day, identify the finalists, complete appropriate reference and background checks, and then conduct the final interviews on another designated day.
Many law firms do not follow this process. Instead, they fall into what might be called the “trickle interview process.”
One candidate interviews on Monday. Another comes in on Wednesday. Two more are interviewed the following week. A promising applicant cannot meet for another ten days, so the firm waits. Meanwhile, another resume comes in that somebody wants to consider.
Before long, the interview process has stretched across several weeks. Some of the strongest candidates have accepted other jobs. The interviewers can no longer remember how the early candidates performed. The open position remains unfilled, and the hiring process seems to have no end.
This is the trickle interview process. It is an inefficient way for law firms to hire.
What causes the trickle interview process?
The trickle approach usually begins when a law firm schedules interviews entirely around each candidate’s availability.
Instead of establishing one or two dates for first-round interviews, the firm asks each candidate, “When are you available?” Every applicant provides different dates and times. The firm then tries to accommodate all of them.
Being considerate of candidates is important. However, the law firm must still control its hiring process.
A firm cannot allow every candidate’s calendar to determine when the firm will make an important hire. If it does, the interviews will inevitably spread across many days or weeks.
The problem can become worse when several managers or lawyers must participate. Every candidate’s schedule must then be coordinated with the calendars of multiple interviewers who also have hearings, client meetings, deadlines, and other responsibilities.
What looked like flexibility quickly turns into disorder.
The law firm begins losing good candidates
Strong candidates are rarely applying to only one employer. They may be interviewing with several law firms, companies, government agencies, or other organizations simultaneously.
While one law firm is slowly conducting first-round interviews, another employer may have already completed two rounds and extended an offer.
The candidate who interviewed first in the trickle process may wait two or three weeks without receiving a decision. Eventually, that person may assume the firm is not interested or that its management is indecisive.
By the time the firm finally identifies its preferred candidate, that individual may have accepted another job.
The law firm then moves to its second choice. But the second choice may also be gone. The firm may have to settle for a weaker candidate or restart the entire process.
Moving slowly does not necessarily produce a more careful hiring decision. It may simply ensure that the best candidates are no longer available when the firm is ready to decide.
Interviewers cannot compare candidates effectively
Another significant problem is the inability to compare candidates accurately.
When six candidates interview on the same day, their qualifications, personalities, communication skills, and answers are fresh in the interviewers’ minds. The hiring team can compare the candidates while the information is current.
That becomes much harder when the interviews occur over several weeks.
The interviewers may remember the most recent candidate more clearly than the person who interviewed two weeks earlier. They may forget an excellent answer provided during an early interview. They may also remember a general impression without recalling the facts supporting it.
Interview questions may change as well. One candidate may be asked difficult follow-up questions while another receives a much easier conversation. One interviewer may focus on experience, while another focuses primarily on personality.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s guidance on structured interviews explains that candidates should generally be asked the same predetermined questions and evaluated under consistent standards. Conducting interviews in an organized block makes that consistency much easier to maintain.
The trickle process makes comparisons less reliable and allows recency, memory, and inconsistent questioning to influence the final decision.
The hiring standards begin to drift
When the process lasts too long, the standards for the position may also begin to change.
At the beginning, the firm may have a clear understanding of the experience, compensation range, availability, and skills it wants. As weeks pass, managers may become frustrated with the vacancy and start relaxing those expectations.
A candidate who would not have advanced during the first week may suddenly appear acceptable during the fourth week because the firm is tired of interviewing.
The opposite can also occur. The firm may continue waiting for a perfect candidate who does not exist. Every time the firm nears a decision, somebody wants to interview one more applicant.
There must eventually be a cutoff. Otherwise, the firm never compares a defined group and never makes a decision.
The open position continues harming the firm
An unfilled position is not merely an administrative inconvenience.
When a law firm is short an attorney, paralegal, legal assistant, finance employee, receptionist, or manager, somebody else must perform that work. Existing employees may have to carry additional files, answer more calls, complete extra administrative tasks, or work longer hours.
That can lead to:
- Reduced productivity;
- Lower billable hours;
- Slower client communication;
- Delayed projects;
- Employee frustration;
- Burnout;
- Overtime expenses; and
- Client dissatisfaction.
The longer the trickle interview process continues, the longer the law firm operates without the employee it has already determined it needs.
Interviewing one person at a time can feel less disruptive in the moment. In reality, it extends the disruption over many weeks.
For practicing lawyers, scattered interviews can be especially distracting. Instead of setting aside one day for interviews and returning to their cases, they repeatedly interrupt their legal work for isolated interviews.
The firm can appear indecisive
Candidates are evaluating the law firm too.
A hiring process that lacks a defined schedule may cause applicants to question how the organization is managed. Long periods without communication, repeatedly rescheduled interviews, and uncertainty about the next step can make the firm appear disorganized.
A candidate may reasonably wonder:
- Does this firm make decisions promptly?
- Does management communicate internally?
- Does the firm respect deadlines?
- Will employment decisions also take weeks?
- Is the position genuinely open?
- Does the firm know what it wants?
An organized process sends the opposite message. It demonstrates that the law firm has procedures, respects candidates’ time, and can make decisions.
Follow the proper order of making a hire
The solution is not to eliminate careful screening. The solution is to perform the screening in an organized order.
As explained in “The law firm hiring process”, a firm should ordinarily proceed through a defined sequence:
- Post the open position;
- Review and categorize the resumes;
- Conduct first-round interviews;
- Check references and perform any appropriate background checks with the necessary authorization;
- Select the finalists;
- Conduct second-round interviews;
- Deliberate and select the preferred candidate;
- Extend an offer while keeping an alternate in mind; and
- Notify the unsuccessful candidates after the position is filled.
Law firms often understand this sequence conceptually. The problem is that they do not execute it promptly.
The first round should not remain open indefinitely. The firm should select a date, schedule the qualified candidates in consecutive time blocks, and complete the round.
The same approach should be used for the finalists. As discussed in “Interview for open positions on the same day”, conducting each interview round on a designated day allows candidates to be compared while the discussions are still fresh.
A practical interview schedule
A law firm might structure the process as follows:
Before the first round
- Establish the requirements and approved compensation range;
- Require candidates to complete an employment application;
- Address major salary discrepancies before scheduling interviews;
- Review the resumes and applications;
- Select the first-round candidates;
- Prepare consistent, job-related interview questions; and
- Reserve one interview day on the necessary calendars.
Compensation expectations should be addressed early. As explained in “When a candidate’s salary expectations exceed the position’s range”, there is little benefit in repeatedly interviewing somebody who wants materially more than the firm is prepared to pay.
First-round interview day
Schedule the selected candidates thirty minutes or an hour apart, depending on the position. Ask substantially the same core questions and use a consistent evaluation form.
Each interviewer should record their impressions immediately after each meeting. At the end of the day, the firm should identify the candidates who remain in contention.
Between rounds
Complete reference checks and any legally appropriate background-screening steps. Review writing samples, employment applications, compensation expectations, and other required materials.
The firm should then select two or three finalists.
Final-round interview day
Schedule the finalists on the same day. Afterward, the decision-makers should deliberate while all the interviews are fresh in their minds.
The final round should not become a coronation. The firm should have multiple qualified candidates so it can make a genuine choice and retain an alternate if the first choice declines the offer.
Offer phase
Once the decision is made, the firm should act promptly. A qualified candidate should not have to wait another week while managers revisit issues that should already have been resolved.
Give candidates a reasonable window—not unlimited control
There may be circumstances in which a strong candidate cannot attend on the designated day. Law firms can exercise reasonable judgment. A short video interview or a nearby alternative time may preserve the process without causing a substantial delay.
However, one candidate should not be allowed to hold up the entire hiring cycle.
The firm can offer a small number of interview times and explain that it is completing the round within a defined period. Candidates who are sincerely interested will often find a way to participate.
The firm should be professional and courteous, but it must remain the organizer of its own hiring process.
Stop the trickle
The trickle interview process may appear flexible, but it creates substantial problems. Candidates receive interviews one at a time. Decisions are repeatedly postponed. Interviewers forget the earlier meetings. Strong applicants accept other offers. The open position remains vacant.
Law firms should interview by rounds, not by trickle.
Conduct the first round within a defined window—preferably on one day. Conduct the final round the same way. Use consistent questions, compare the candidates promptly, and make a decision.
A law firm cannot fill an important position efficiently when it allows the interview process to drift for weeks.
If you have any thoughts, feel free to share them below.