Having spent the last few months supporting all you candidates out there (CV writing, advising on what to consider re job applications, challenging you to aspire to that new position), I am afraid that we have now reached the point where some introspection is required.

It is what the BBC calls "political balance," although I would hope that we are somewhat better at that than the Beeb...

The balance, I am afraid for you candidates reading this, unsurprisingly, comes from the firms. I am sorry to say, that to some extent, I agree with them.

But, before you all delete this page in disgust, disconnect with me on LinkedIn and shun me on Twitter (or X, if you prefer), I urge you to hear me out. It may challenge your preconceptions and may actually help you land a new job.

You just have to be brave enough to accept that it maybe your attitude that needs to change and not those of the firms.

Last week, my co-director (Ian Robinson) and I supported a forum of 23 managing partners in London. These managing partners represented some of the most ambitious and progressive firms in the UK.

Topics discussed included regulation (any supporters of the SRA out there?), business development and the role AI. Unsurprisingly, recruitment formed a large part of the day.

When discussing candidates, there was 1 comment about candidates' attitudes which kept getting repeated, and was summed up brilliantly by 1 managing partner. Do you know what that word is?

Would you like a clue?

It's in the title of this blog...

Give up?

Okay, I'll tell you.

Candidates, for perhaps the first time in recent memory, feel "entitled."

And what does this "entitlement" mean?

They expect to land their next job with the salary they believe they are worth, within a certain mile radius of their house, with them having the final say as to whether their role will be office based, remote or hybrid.

According to the managing partners, the days of negotiation, settlement and collaboration are long-gone. It is the candidates who now are setting the agenda, who now have the final say as to what they are and what they are not prepared to accept.

Okay, this isn't the case for every candidate; there is some hyperbole to this, and this comment is, perhaps, reflective of the candidate-driven market we are currently experiencing. And I know that some of this was some managing partners letting their collective frustrations out.

But my experience indicates that they have a point.

Take some recent examples. We discussed 1 position (excellent regional firm, partnership position, progression to managing partnership within a few years) with a candidate who otherwise fitted the job description perfectly.

The candidate turned the position down.

The reason? The role was office-based and was a half an hour car journey from the candidate's house.

The candidate would only consider a position 10 minutes away from his house.

I know, I don't understand it either. A half an hour commute in the morning and in the evening. Whatever happened to the principle that if you wanted the work, you travelled? As we discussed all those blogs ago, a commute was always a good way to de-stress (unless Waterloo shuts down...) and to keeping the office stress firmly in the office.

Before you say anything, I appreciate that a 10 minute commute is fine if you live in a city. This candidate, however, lived in High Wycombe. Good luck finding your 10 minute commute there...

Another trend we're seeing a lot of at the moment is the move in-house from private practice. This is where a sense of entitlement really can push a candidate's expectations into the realms of high fantasy.

The script is usually the same.

"I have been working as a fee-earner now for the last 15 years, but I am now sick of the stress and working in the office. I want something in-house, where I can clock in at 9:30 and clock off at 5:30 every day, work hybrid 2 days a week, perhaps work for only 4 days and the work can be based around my life."

"And what is your salary expectations?" I ask.

"I am currently on £180,000 a year, but I appreciate that I need to be realistic as I am moving to a 45 hour a week job, perhaps even 4 days a week. So I think I should be able to get £150,000 easily."

Occasionally I am asked for my opinion on this. I will let you guess what my thoughts are.

For me, it is not just entitlement, it's short-termism as well.

When a candidate (usually a senior associate) says they want to go in-house, I ask them about their career progression if they were to make the move and where they will see themselves in 5 to 10 years (let alone beyond that). They will still be doing the same type of job. If they were to stay in private practice, at least they would have a route to partnership.

Remember it is easy to make the shift in-house. It is almost impossible to make the move back again.

For the sake of balance, firms are partly to blame for this. For years, firms have been paying their trainees and NQs a salary which far exceeds their worth. This starts with the large city firms, but like all things, it is reflected throughout the profession.

When the city firms sneeze, the regionals catch a cold.

Unfortunately, as this generation of highly paid NQs develop into senior associates and then into junior partners, this salary package gives birth to the entitlement to which the managing partners last week referred.

My advice?

For those who are still with me and who I haven't yet alienated, do what a lawyer is good at. Negotiate, collaborate, settle. Forget what you are entitled to and consider what you can bring to a firm. Be open-minded, and at least consider a position properly before refusing.

Otherwise, you may all find that you have turned the market against you, and it may be virtually impossible to find your new job.

And please drop your own sense of self-worth.