A reference tells you about the partner. It does not tell you about the book.

The book is where committees most often mistake a reference for evidence. The Sartori research page says so directly: where candidate claims and verified data diverge, with portable originations the clearest case, the programme publishes the gap rather than the flattering number. A warm reference that calls a partner “the relationship lawyer” is a reason to ask a better question about the client, not a substitute for asking it. The method for that question is in how law firms value a book of business.

Conflicts and conduct are checked twice. The candidate’s disclosures go through the firm’s conflicts counsel, using general descriptions so nobody exposes privileged content. Public disciplinary records are pulled directly from the relevant bars. A reference adds only one thing here: whether colleagues know of a dispute, a departure under pressure or a complaint that never reached a public record.

Collaboration is the dimension a reference answers best, and the one committees most often skip. Ask former associates and co-counsel, not only partners. Ask how credit and work were shared, how the partner behaved when a matter went badly, and whether the people who worked for the candidate would work for them again. The answers feed the integration plan, which matters after the start date far more than before it.

Client confidences. A candidate owes duties to current clients that a hiring firm cannot waive. 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, lets a moving lawyer disclose identity, a brief issue summary and whether a matter has ended, in order to detect and resolve conflicts. A committee that asks for privileged detail, or for information that would disadvantage a client, is asking the candidate to breach a duty. The safe course is the same as in the LPQ process: general descriptions, only after substantive talks, only what conflicts clearance needs.

Authorization and third-party reports. When an outside agency compiles a background report on a candidate, the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act generally requires a clear written disclosure and the candidate’s authorization, and adds steps if the firm acts on the report. Some states add their own rules. A committee that makes its own calls avoids the agency step but not the ethics, and should still have the candidate’s written consent to the calls.

Truthful statements. A committee member who tells a reference something false, or hints at a negative that the firm does not know to be true, risks a claim for defamation, and lawyers carry additional duties of candor. Keep to facts and to questions. Do not characterize the candidate, and do not share the candidate’s compensation, book or reasons for moving with a reference. Reference answers may themselves be protected in some states and not in others, so the script should assume they are not.

Antitrust and compensation. A reference call is not a place to swap pay data with another firm. Asking a peer firm what it pays partners, or what it would offer the candidate, can look like coordination on compensation or hiring. Keep compensation questions to the candidate and to published data.

Protected characteristics and privacy. Do not ask, and do not record, anything about age, health, family plans, religion, national origin or other protected characteristics. For candidates and references in Europe and other regulated regions, the data-protection rules govern what the committee may collect, how long it may keep notes and whom it may share them with.

Interference. A call that invites a colleague or client to follow the candidate can be read as solicitation. If the candidate is under a non-solicit or notice obligation, the committee’s own calls can become evidence in a later dispute. Review the covenants before the first back-channel call, not after.

Three practical points follow. First, a reference is a view of a person, and people are better at describing character than a book. A committee that leans on references for the book is leaning on the weakest instrument it has. Second, diligence reduces risk and does not remove it. A hire can clear every check and still fail for reasons nobody could see, which is why integration planning is a separate file. Third, our own figures are aggregates from our records and should be read with their population and period, as the research page instructs. They are not a guarantee about any one search.

The response is to weight the instruments honestly. Put the book on client data. Put conflicts on counsel. Put character and collaboration on structured references. Put the rest on the integration plan.