For years, one of the hardest parts of recruiting was simply finding the right people. That is changing quickly. AI-powered recruiting platforms, LinkedIn tools, increasingly sophisticated databases, and easier access to professional information can now generate long lists of lawyers who appear to match a job description in seconds. For companies, that sounds like an obvious win. More access to talent should make hiring easier. But identifying people who could do the job is only the beginning.
The harder questions remain: Who actually wants this job? Who understands the business? Whose experience translates to this particular environment? Who will work well with this General Counsel, executive team, or board? And which candidate is likely to succeed long after the search is over? In some ways, having more information has made those questions even more important.
AI is very good at identifying patterns. If a company needs an M&A lawyer with energy industry experience, technology can quickly find attorneys whose profiles contain the right titles, employers, and keywords. What it cannot reliably explain is the context behind those profiles.
Two candidates with nearly identical résumés may be very different hires. One may have led transactions independently while the other played a supporting role. One may thrive in a lean department where lawyers make decisions with imperfect information; the other may prefer the resources and specialization of a large organization. One may be genuinely excited about the company’s growth plans, while another would need significant persuasion to leave a good job. Those distinctions rarely appear in a search result.
Good hiring has always required looking beyond credentials, but that becomes even more important as technology makes candidate lists longer.
Why did someone leave a role after eighteen months? Was it a performance issue, or was the division sold? Why has a lawyer spent ten years at one company? Is that evidence of loyalty and increasing responsibility, or has the role remained largely unchanged? Why would a successful law firm partner want to move in-house now? There is rarely a useful algorithmic answer.
The same is true on the company side. A job description may say the company wants twelve different things, but only three may truly determine success. Understanding those priorities matters more than finding someone who checks every box.
One of the most overlooked parts of hiring is motivation. A candidate may have exactly the right experience and still be the wrong hire if the opportunity does not align with what they actually want next.
A lawyer looking for broader strategic responsibility will probably not be happy in a role that is primarily transactional, regardless of title or compensation. A candidate seeking a smaller, more entrepreneurial environment may struggle in a highly matrixed organization. Someone prioritizing advancement may hesitate if the department is flat and the long-term path is unclear.
The best hiring processes explore those questions early, rather than discovering the mismatch at the offer stage or six months after the person starts.
Candidates are experiencing the same shift. It may be easier than ever to become visible to employers, but being found is not the same as being compelling. A strong résumé still needs to tell a coherent story. Candidates need to explain not only what they have done, but how they have added value, why they made particular career moves, and why the opportunity in front of them makes sense.
As technology improves at identifying possible matches, the human parts of the process become more important, not less: judgment, communication, curiosity, credibility, and genuine interest.
AI and recruiting technology will continue to make sourcing faster and more efficient. That is a positive development. But hiring was never really about producing the longest list of qualified people. It is about understanding what a company truly needs, evaluating candidates in context, and finding the intersection between capability, motivation, and fit.
Technology can help identify the possibilities. Good judgment still determines which possibility becomes the right hire.
