After 8+ years as a lawyer, Rachael Musgrave made the jump to legal recruitment. 

From the insurance disputes team at Clayton Utz and in-house at Suncorp to working in recruitment both in agency and for a top-tier law firm, she’s cultivated decades of experience on both sides of the industry.

Today, Rachael works at Empire Group, where she connects lawyers at all levels with their future careers. 

We sat down with Rachael to discuss salary expectations, how to spot a rogue recruiter, and when the right time is to move in-house.

I worked as a lawyer for around 8+ years, both in top-tier firms and in-house. 

My career started at Clayton Utz while I was still studying. My original plan was to go to the bar, but I ended up joining Suncorp in-house, just as they were privatising. 

I stayed at Suncorp for about seven and a half years, which I really enjoyed. But I had two children and was having a third, while my husband was at the private bar. I thought one of us doing unusual hours was enough. So I took a step back from work.

When I was ready to return to work, the question became: “Do I go back into law or not?”

I ran into a friend who owned an accounting recruitment agency, and they asked whether I wanted to join. Being a Brisbane girl, Brisbane born, I happened to have a strong network of partners here, so that gave me a head start. 

Then my now boss at Empire Group, Michelle Sneesby, approached me and asked whether I wanted to join a team that specialises in legal recruitment. 

That’s how I fell into recruiting.

There’s a really big thing at the moment.

It’s ghosting. I’ve had candidates who’ve interviewed and even received offers, and then I’ll never hear from them again. Law is a small market. If you’ve interviewed at a firm, you must give a response. Even if it’s a “no”. It looks really bad on the candidate, and firms do talk to other firms. 

A lot of lawyers also don’t realise the benefit of having a recruiter. We’re there to get them the best deal. We’re paid by the firm based on the salary we secure for the candidate, so it’s in our best interest to get the best possible salary for them. We’re good at negotiating. We do it every day.

In saying that, I think there is a lot of misunderstanding as to what a good recruiter does for you. Unfortunately, there are cowboys and cowgirls in the market who often just push people into roles without considering what’s best for them. 

Rogue recruiters send candidates’ details everywhere without having or building relationships with the firms. If you’re working with a recruiter, they’ll often “own” you for 6 to 12 months. This means that no one else can represent that candidate to those firms for that 6 to 12 months, even if I have a really good relationship with those firms. I’ve previously reached out to firms I have good relationships with, and they’ve told me, “Oh, they’ve already been submitted by another recruiter, we can’t talk to you about them”. So I can’t use my influence to help the candidate because they’ve already been put forward.

Firms don’t like it when candidates are submitted by multiple recruiters, especially if the recruiter doesn’t have a good relationship with them. It makes the candidate look desperate. That’s why I always say to candidates, “Don’t let any recruiter send your details without your permission.” 

I’ve also had a situation where a candidate was told by a recruiter they’d been put forward for a particular role at a mid-tier firm. But when I asked the firm, it turned out the recruiter hadn’t put them forward at all. I assume that the rogue recruiter wanted to steer the candidate away from specific roles they didn’t want them to pursue, and then channel that candidate to jobs that better suited the recruiter’s own interests.

Always check the longevity of the recruiter’s roles. If someone’s been with an agency for a long time, it’s a good sign. Also, ask about what relationships they have with firms and specific teams. 

Don’t be afraid to tell a recruiter when you’re not ready to make a move. I just spoke to someone recently who had been referred to me. I told them, “If you don’t have to move, I think you need to stay at least 12 months. It looks much better on your CV.” I could place them somewhere now, but that wouldn’t be fair to them. They need to be ready.

I think what’s happening with some of the rogue recruiters is that we’re losing our reputation as a trusted source. If you’re talking to a recruiter, you need to trust them. Help me help you. I can’t assist you unless I know what you need. I find a lot of candidates are reluctant to share because they've been burned before. It’s really important to choose a recruiter you trust.

First and foremost, you have to listen to the candidate and understand what they want. 

For some people, it's all about the money. For others, it's about doing high-quality work or doing this particular type of work. So there's no point in putting a candidate into a team that only does leasing when they say to me: “I don’t want to do leasing.” But ultimately, there are different drivers for people, and sometimes there are a number of drivers.

And then you have to know the team because you need to know how the candidate will fit. I often say to candidates: “Just as much as the firm is interviewing you, you’re interviewing them.” That’s the market we’re in now. Candidates are speaking with multiple firms, so firms need to sell themselves as well. 

Once I understand what the candidate wants, I also need to know the firm side. Firms aren’t going to take someone just because they’re a nice person. Over the years, firms have become very specific, ticking off every box they need for a role. I need to ensure the candidate has the right skill set for the team. 

For example, if a team is made up of senior associates and they need a mid-level or junior lawyer to make the team more profitable, then sending someone with 8 or 10 years of experience won’t work. Even if the candidate says: “I don’t mind doing junior work.” It just won’t be a good fit. So, I take all of that into consideration when making a match.

I think it definitely makes a difference. 

I have experience and understanding of the law. For example, when I first started recruiting, recruiters thought personal injury law was all the same. They didn’t realise that there’s a big difference between plaintiff and defendant. Even within defendant insurance, there are many variations: motor vehicle accidents, public liability, recovery claims, professional indemnity, etc.

Having also worked both in a top-tier firm and in-house, I understand the demands of junior and senior lawyers. Working in top-tier recruitment has been a huge help as you have very close relationships with your stakeholders and are heavily involved in the hiring approval process. You consider important factors that influence whether you even hire in the first place, such as a team’s productivity. What is their team structure? Do they need more senior lawyers or juniors to assist? What are the teams’ / partners’ needs?

And, of course, when you work with the partners so closely, you know which people they'll either love or hate. It’s about understanding and matching personalities. I always tell candidates: “Just because I like a partner doesn’t mean you will too.” You need to find what fits for both sides.

There’s a cycle to the market. 

When the economy goes down, litigation tends to go up because people become desperate for money. Litigation roles were abundant earlier this year, and now we’re seeing more roles available in the Commercial Property, Employment and Family Law areas.

One area that is particularly booming is Estate Litigation. Firms are now wanting to build up their Wills & Estates teams because of the generational wealth transfer that we’re seeing. This will definitely be an area to watch out for on the disputes side.

It used to be that lawyers didn’t consider moving in-house until they were at least 5 years plus PQE. I’ve seen a massive change in the market, from both corporates and candidates. 

Now, younger lawyers desperately want to move away from billables, thinking that in-house will be their solution. But my big message to them is: Don’t do it.

It’s a shame because many corporates are now thinking: “Why pay all these fees to law firms when we can have our own in-house team?” They build the team. Get a legal counsel or two, then add a junior, and think that’s enough.

The problem is, you do not get the same training and resources you would get at a big firm. At a firm, you learn from numerous partners and the teams around you. You get to absorb all that information. It’s important to have that infrastructure around you to help grow your skill set.

Sure, some lawyers will say: “I work directly with the Legal Counsel and they give me great training.” That’s true, and that’s great. But it would not be of the standard that you would get when you’re in a private law firm. It just won’t be. I’ve had graduates who did their graduate programs in-house come to me after a few years, saying they feel like they’re not learning anything anymore. Even as a senior lawyer, you can plateau. And some people are fine with that, and that’s okay. But honestly, I still do not think it's a great learning ground for young lawyers.

Young lawyers are changing the industry. 

Historically, people worked long hours and sacrificed a lot for their firm. Young lawyers don’t want to climb the corporate ladder anymore. They don’t want to give their organs to the firm. Some firms are asking me for candidates interested in partnership, but fewer lawyers want the responsibility. 

I've had a few comments from candidates about how billable targets are increasing at mid and top-tier firms. Candidates are finding it frustrating because they achieve those billables, but when it comes to billing time, their time gets written off. Lawyers are extremely high-achieving people. Being told that all their time is being written off is disheartening for them.

If you want my honest opinion, the problem is that firms want to keep doing better each year. Everyone wants to increase profits, even while our economy is declining. That means everyone has to work more and more. When are we going to say, “Hey, I made the same amount of profit as I did last year, and that’s great, given the circumstances.” It comes back to pressure on partners to make more money. They have pressure from management. It doesn’t exactly leave any room for the balance that younger lawyers are after.

It will be interesting to see what happens with this shift in young lawyers and how firms will react to this change.

Salaries do vary. The boutiques are now offering very competitive salaries and considering flexibility. They can compete quite well. You see a lot of mid or top-tier partners who move to these boutiques. They’re able to do quality work, but at half the cost. And they are often much happier.

On the candidate side, there’s definitely a mismatch in salary expectations. Candidates seem to think they can demand huge salary increases, but sometimes that’s just not realistic. For example, some juniors want an extra $10,000 or $20,000. And at a junior level, that's huge money. When firms can’t offer those bumps, candidates will say: “I don’t think that’s my worth”.

Yes, it’s really important for a candidate to know their worth. But some rogue recruiters will tell candidates that they are worth stupid money to convince them to work with them. Do your research. My job is to give honest feedback on where you sit in the market rather than giving candidates unrealistic expectations.

I think it is, yes.

It’s not as buoyant as it was a couple of years ago. When we were coming out of COVID, people were moving roles all over the place. Firms were offering huge sign-on bonuses and even retention bonuses to secure and retain people. You didn’t need to have the exact skill set. Firms just needed people to help out.

But the market has moved a fair bit since then. People have the flexibility piece now, not needing to be in the office all the time. They’re also being paid pretty well. On top of that, the economy is becoming increasingly uncertain, with higher interest rates and global tensions. That translates to not a lot of candidates on the market right now. 

So, people have bunkered down. But that also means it’s a great time to be looking for a job with less competition in the market.

This interview was edited for brevity and clarity.