Guide · For managing partners
Choose the partner-hire recruiter on the terms of the letter, not the pitch.
A recruiter is hired once and lives with the firm for years: in the conflicts file, in the market's memory of who was approached, and in the fee schedule. Four terms decide whether the engagement works: retained or contingent, exclusivity, conflicts, and fees.
Four terms decide whether a partner search works.
Most managing partners pick a recruiter on introductions and enthusiasm. The hire is decided earlier, in four clauses of the engagement letter.
- 1,480,000+
- lawyers in the market mapcoverage, not a contact list; interview findings are reported against cohorts
- Sartori & Partners research program, 2026
- 25–30%
- of first-year total compensationretained only; no contingency option
- Sartori & Partners fee terms, 2026
- 30%
- of the fee paid as a retainerpaid at engagement and kept if the search is cancelled
- Sartori & Partners fee terms, 2026
- 340
- Houston energy partners mappedabout 15% of 2,219 US energy partners in the same mapping
- Sartori market mapping, May–June 2026 snapshot
The figures above are Sartori & Partners’ own terms and mapping, published on the research program page and the firm fact sheet. They show what a recruiter should be able to state on request. The same four questions apply to any firm you interview, including ours, and our own published record has a gap on the partner side, set out below.
Retained or contingent: who carries the risk decides who does the work.
A partner hire is a small field, a confidential approach and a long decision. Those three facts favor retained search.
The difference between the two models is not price. It is who carries the risk of a miss, and therefore who has a reason to do the slow work: mapping a practice, testing a book, and approaching partners who would never answer a call from a desk working on commission.
A retained recruiter is paid for the search, not only the outcome. That changes behavior in three ways. The recruiter commits a named team to the brief from the first week. The firm deals with one accountable channel rather than several. And the recruiter can advise against a hire, because the fee does not depend on the hire closing. A contingent recruiter has none of those incentives and some of the opposite ones: the fee arrives only when someone is placed, so the rational move on a hard brief is to spend the hours elsewhere and to send the names that are easy to move rather than the names that are right.
Contingent search is not wrong everywhere. It suits a routine seat, at a level where several candidates are welcome and a leak costs little. It is the wrong model for a practice-group lead, a team lift-out or any partner whose departure would be read by clients and competitors. In a connected market, one duplicated submission is enough to put a firm’s interest in a named partner in front of three other firms.
| Point | Retained | Contingent |
|---|---|---|
| Who pays, and when | The firm pays a retainer at engagement and the balance on the agreed terms. | The firm pays only if a hire closes. |
| Who carries the risk of a miss | The firm. The retainer is spent on work already done. | The recruiter. The firm pays nothing for a search that fails. |
| Effort on a hard brief | Committed from week one, because the work is paid for. | Follows the odds. A hard brief competes with easier ones on the same desk. |
| Number of desks on the same names | One, under a written scope. | Often several. Duplicate submissions and disputed ownership of a candidate are common. |
| Confidentiality | One accountable channel and one protocol to audit. | Hard to audit. The firm cannot see who else has heard of the search. |
| Best fit | A hire the firm cannot afford to see leak or fail: a practice-group lead, a team lift-out, a rainmaker. | A routine, well-defined seat where the firm is happy to see several candidates and control is not the issue. |
Sartori & Partners is retained only, on every search, with no contingency option. The fee is 25–30 percent of first-year total compensation, and 30 percent of that fee is paid as a retainer at engagement and kept if the search is cancelled (firm fact sheet, 2026). That is a real cost to the client, and section 06 is about the most uncomfortable consequence of it.
The retainer buys the work. It does not buy the hire.
Grant exclusivity in a bounded form, and write the four terms down.
Exclusivity is a trade. The firm gives a recruiter a defined field and time; the recruiter gives the firm a mapped market, a protocol and accountability.
Managing partners are right to be wary of exclusivity. A recruiter who asks for it in general terms is asking for the exit door to be locked. Bounded exclusivity is different, because it lets a recruiter do what a contingent desk cannot: approach a small set of partners individually and quietly, knowing no competitor is sending the same names.
Scope
Name the practice, the geography and the seniority. Exclusivity on “partner hires” in general is a blank check; exclusivity on “a restructuring partner in Chicago” is a brief.
Term
Fix an end date and a review date. A recruiter who needs an open-ended term to justify the work is telling you the work is thin.
Carve-outs
List candidates the firm already knows, internal referrals and anyone in an existing conversation. They stay outside the fee, in writing, before outreach begins.
Protection
Ask for the tail: how long after the term the fee attaches to a candidate the recruiter introduced, and what counts as an introduction.
The test of a recruiter’s offer is what they give in return. A recruiter asking for exclusivity should be able to state the size of the mapped field for the brief. In the representative Houston energy file on this site, the mapped field was 340 energy partners in one metro, about 15 percent of the 2,219 US energy partners in the same mapping (May–June 2026 snapshot). A recruiter who can put a number on the field has done the mapping. One who cannot is proposing to learn the market at the firm’s expense.
Confidentiality belongs in the same clause. Sartori’s protocol is blind both ways until mutual interest is confirmed, no CV leaves the firm without written candidate consent, and conflicts are checked before outreach. Ask any recruiter for their equivalent in the engagement letter, and ask who inside the recruiter’s organization can see the names.
Two sets of conflicts: the recruiter's and the candidate's.
A conflict in a partner search can sit with the recruiter before it ever sits with the candidate.
The recruiter’s conflicts are commercial and ethical. The candidate’s are professional: client conflicts that can stop a move after the decision is made.
The recruiter’s conflicts. Ask who else the recruiter represents in the same practice and city, and whether any of those firms is one the candidate is likely to be approached for. A recruiter working simultaneously for two competing firms on the same partner is a conflict. So is a recruiter who is also paid by the candidate’s current firm to retain that partner. The defense is an off-limits schedule: firms the recruiter will not approach on the firm’s behalf and firms the recruiter will not approach on anyone else’s behalf for the term. Put both in the letter, with durations.
The candidate’s conflicts. A moving partner may have client conflicts that only the receiving firm’s general counsel can clear. The recruiter’s job is not to clear them. The recruiter’s job is to surface them early and to avoid taking anything from the candidate that the ethics rules do not allow to be disclosed. ABA Formal Opinion 09-455, issued 8 October 2009, permits limited client-identity disclosure once substantive discussions have begun, and Model Rule 1.6(b)(7), added in August 2012, allows a moving lawyer to disclose the identity of a client, a brief issue summary and whether the matter has terminated, to detect and resolve conflicts arising from a change of employment. A recruiter who asks a candidate for a client list, billing figures by client, or file detail at the first call is asking for more than either text allows.
The receiving firm has its own file to run. The lateral partner questionnaire is the vehicle, and the companies that buy legal services from the firm have a stake in it, which is the subject of our guide to lateral partner due diligence. A recruiter who treats the questionnaire as an obstacle to be managed is a recruiter to replace.
Define the fee base for a partner before the search starts.
Fee percentages are easy to compare. The base they apply to is where the money is decided.
Sartori & Partners charges 25–30 percent of the hire’s first-year total compensation, with 30 percent of the fee paid as a retainer at engagement (firm fact sheet, 2026). For an associate or an in-house lawyer, total compensation is a salary and a bonus. For a partner it is not. A partner’s first year can include a guarantee, a draw, a bonus, origination credit, a signing payment and capital contributed to the firm. Each of those may or may not sit in the fee base, and the answer moves the fee by a large amount.
Put these questions to every recruiter and write the answers into the letter:
- Does the base include a guarantee, and is it the guaranteed amount or what is actually paid?
- Are capital contributions and non-cash benefits inside or outside the base?
- What share of the fee is paid at engagement, and is it credited against the final fee?
- What happens to the retainer if the firm cancels the search?
- What is the replacement term in months, and what triggers it? Does a partner who leaves for cause, or who is moved by the firm, count?
- How long after the term does the fee attach to a candidate the recruiter introduced?
On the replacement term, be precise about what is published. Sartori’s 12-month replacement term covers retained general counsel, chief legal officer and chief compliance officer searches. Ask any recruiter, this firm included, for the partner-search term in writing, with its triggers. The economics that the fee sits on are the subject of the guide to negotiating partner compensation.
Our own partner-side record is conversations, not placements.
The test this guide asks you to apply to a recruiter is one our published record does not yet pass.
Sartori & Partners cites 2,600+ partner conversations since 2017. Its own fact sheet states that the count is conversations, not closed partner placements, and that it is not part of the 400+ placements (230+ in-house). The firm publishes no count of closed partner placements at all.
A managing partner reading that should do what this guide recommends: ask for the number that is missing. A conversation is a call. It says a recruiter is connected to a market; it does not say a recruiter can close one. The firm’s closed-placement figures (230+ since 2017, of which 52 were general counsel or chief legal officer) describe the in-house book, and they should not be read across to partner search.
Three more limits, all stated on the firm’s own pages, belong in the same file:
- The Houston energy case study is a representative, anonymized composite. It publishes the method and the structure of the market, and no outcome metric. It is evidence of how a search is run, not of a result.
- The research program’s aggregates are not audited by a third party, and the program says so.
- Retained does not mean guaranteed. On the firm’s retained corporate mandates, completion is 92 percent, so a minority do not end in a hire, and under the retained model the retainer is kept when a search is cancelled. The firm publishes no equivalent completion rate for partner searches.
The practical conclusion is not that retained search is wrong. It is that the fee for a retained search buys process, mapping and accountability, and does not buy a result. Ask each recruiter on your shortlist for closed partner placements with dates, bases and windows. Treat a recruiter who supplies conversation counts, testimonials or a headline book figure in their place as having answered a different question.
A “$X-million book” headline tells you almost nothing.
Eight questions to put to every recruiter on the shortlist.
Interview two or three recruiters on the same eight questions. The answers, not the presentations, are the comparison.
Before the first introductionIn the engagement letter
- Model Retained for the hire that cannot leak or fail.
- Exclusivity One practice, one geography, a fixed term, named carve-outs.
- Conflicts Off-limits schedule for both sides; nothing taken from a candidate that the ethics rules do not allow.
- Fees Fee base, retainer treatment, replacement term and tail.
| Test | What to ask | A pass looks like | A fail looks like |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mandate model | Is every search retained? Is there a contingency option? | One model, stated in the first call | Retained language on a contingent engagement |
| Closed partner placements | How many, in which practices, with dates? Are conversations counted as placements? | A number with a window and a base | A conversation count offered as proof |
| Market map | How large is the mapped field in this practice and city, and how was it built? | A figure for the practice, with its date | A promise to find someone |
| Conflicts protocol | Who else does the recruiter represent at competing firms? What is off-limits, and for how long? | A written off-limits schedule | Verbal assurance only |
| Candidate confidentiality | Does any CV or name leave the recruiter without written candidate consent? | No, stated in the engagement letter | Names shared to test the market |
| Book diligence | How does the recruiter test whether a partner's book is portable before introducing them? | A described method that separates personal from institutional relationships | Quoting the candidate's headline figure |
| Fee base and replacement | What is the fee base for a partner, and what is the replacement term in months? | Both written, with the triggers | “We will agree it when there is an offer” |
| References | Can the firm speak to a managing partner the recruiter has served? | Offered with the client's consent | Testimonials only |
Two habits improve the comparison. First, give every recruiter the same written brief, so the differences in their answers are differences in method. Second, speak to the person who will run the search, not the person who presents it. The market map, the conflicts protocol and the book diligence are done by the first, and the letter is only as good as that person’s description of them.
Finally, read how the recruiter talks about other firms. A recruiter who names a competitor’s partners in the first meeting will name yours in the next. The discipline to look for is the one the Houston file records: mapping before approaching, and testing a book before celebrating a number. More on the recruiter side of these risks is in recruiter lies law firms must stop buying. The service page for this work is partner recruiting.
What managing partners ask before choosing a recruiter
Should a law firm use a retained or a contingent recruiter for a partner hire?
Retained, for any hire the firm cannot afford to see leak or fail. A retained search pays for work from the first week and gives the firm one accountable channel. A contingent recruiter is paid only if a hire closes, so the firm carries no cost on a miss but also no control over how many desks are sending the same names. Sartori & Partners works retained only: 25–30 percent of first-year total compensation, with 30 percent of the fee paid as a retainer at engagement (firm fact sheet, 2026).
Should a managing partner give a recruiter exclusivity?
Yes, in a bounded form. Exclusivity is a trade: the firm grants one recruiter a defined practice, geography and term, and in return asks for a mapped field, a written conflicts protocol and a fee that is earned only on the stated terms. Open-ended exclusivity with no end date is the version to refuse. The exclusivity clauses below set out the four terms to write down.
How should a recruiter handle conflicts in a partner search?
Two conflicts matter. The recruiter's own: who else the recruiter represents at competing firms and which firms are off-limits. The candidate's: client conflicts and the disclosures a moving lawyer may make. ABA Model Rule 1.6(b)(7), added in August 2012, lets a moving lawyer disclose limited information to detect and resolve conflicts, and Formal Opinion 09-455 (8 October 2009) sets the limits. The recruiter should never ask for more than that.
What does a recruiter fee cover on a partner hire, and what should be defined?
Define the fee base before the search starts. Sartori & Partners bills 25–30 percent of first-year total compensation. For a partner, ask whether the base includes a guarantee, a draw, bonus, or non-cash items, and whether capital contributed by the partner is excluded. Ask for the replacement term in months and what triggers it. Our published 12-month replacement term covers general counsel, chief legal officer and chief compliance officer searches; ask any recruiter, including us, for the partner-search term in writing.
How many partner placements has Sartori & Partners closed?
The firm does not publish a count. It cites 2,600+ partner conversations since 2017, and its fact sheet states that this is conversations, not closed partner placements. The 400+ placements figure is in-house only. A managing partner choosing a recruiter should ask every candidate firm, this one included, for closed partner placements with dates, and treat conversations as a separate and weaker number.
Is a confidential search possible without a public posting?
Yes, and for a partner hire it is the default. The representative Houston energy case study on this site narrowed a mapped field of 340 energy partners (May–June 2026 snapshot) to one lateral hire without a posted role or any market signal. That file is a composite with no published outcome metric, so it shows the method, not a result.
Published firm pages and two ethics texts.
Every Sartori figure here is already published on the research program page, the firm fact sheet or a case study.
Sources
4 references- Sartori & Partners — Research program sartoriglobal.com ↗
- Sartori & Partners — Who is Sartori & Partners (firm fact sheet) sartoriglobal.com ↗
- Sartori & Partners — Case study: Confidential lateral partner search, Houston energy sartoriglobal.com ↗
- New Hampshire Bar — Disclosure of Client Information When Lawyers Move Between Firms (22 February 2013) nhbar.org ↗
Sartori figures come from the firm's own published pages and are not audited by a third party. The Houston energy file is a representative composite. No competitor recruiter is used as a source.
There is no published median for partner-search fees, no published completion rate for partner searches, and no published count of the firm’s closed partner placements. Those series are left out rather than estimated.
The other half of the same hire.
Choosing the recruiter is the first decision. The conflicts file, the questionnaire and the pay follow it.
Lateral Partner Due Diligence
The other side of the same hire: the conflicts, client schedule, guarantee and references a company should see before a panel firm’s incoming partner closes.
Read the due-diligence guideThe Lateral Partner Questionnaire (LPQ)
What the questionnaire asks a moving partner, and when in the process it runs.
Read the LPQ guideNegotiating Partner Compensation in a Lateral Move
Guarantee, draw, capital and clawback: the economics a recruiter's fee base will sit on.
Read the compensation guideFor managing partners
Choosing a recruiter for a partner hire?
We run partner searches on retained terms only, with the fee base, exclusivity, conflicts protocol and replacement term in writing before anyone is approached.