A question gaining renewed attention in legal talent circles is whether internal law firm recruiting staff—those employed directly by the firm—face legal or ethical restrictions when cold calling lawyers at other firms to recruit them. The practice is increasingly tempting as firms invest in building robust in-house talent acquisition capabilities. But the question deserves a careful look across several distinct legal and professional frameworks before firms greenlight the practice.

The most commonly cited legal concern is tortious interference—either with contract or with business relations. Tortious interference with contract requires that a defendant, with knowledge of an existing contract, intentionally induced a breach of that contract causing damages. In the context of lateral recruiting, this would require demonstrating that a target attorney was under a valid, enforceable employment contract with a non-compete or exclusive term that the recruiting firm’s conduct caused to be breached. As a practical matter, attorney employment relationships are at-will, and most law firms do not maintain enforceable non-compete agreements with their lawyers. Indeed, non-compete clauses for attorneys are unenforceable or heavily restricted as a matter of professional responsibility rules protecting client choice of counsel. The tortious interference with contract theory therefore rarely finds fertile ground in this context.

The broader tort—tortious interference with business relations or prospective economic advantage—is more nuanced. This cause of action does not require an existing enforceable contract; it requires only that the defendant, through improper means, intentionally disrupted a business relationship causing harm. The threshold question is whether the recruiting conduct constitutes “improper means.” Courts generally require something more than aggressive competition: deception, fraud, threats, or conduct that is independently wrongful. Cold calling a lawyer who is not bound by any restrictive covenant to discuss a lateral opportunity is, on its face, the ordinary mechanics of a competitive labor market. Courts have consistently held that competition, even aggressive competition, is not tortious interference. A few jurisdictions apply a more expansive standard, and firms should assess applicable state law before acting, but the core act of solicitation, standing alone, is unlikely to support a successful tortious interference claim.

ABA Model Rule 7.3, which governs direct solicitation of prospective clients, is frequently cited in this context—but it is the wrong rule. Rule 7.3 addresses attorney solicitation of legal clients, not recruitment of other lawyers as employees or lateral hires. A cold call to a partner at a peer firm about a job opportunity is not a solicitation of legal services, and no bar authority has treated it as such. Internal recruiting staff, who typically are not licensed attorneys, are further removed still from the professional responsibility framework Rule 7.3 was designed to address.

The more serious ethics risk lies elsewhere: conflicts. When Firm A’s internal recruiter calls a lawyer at Firm B, there is a non-trivial chance that the target attorney is opposing counsel in active litigation, co-counsel on a shared matter, or counsel to a party adverse to one of Firm A’s clients. Even an introductory conversation—if it strays into the substance of ongoing work—could implicate duties of confidentiality under Model Rules 1.6 and 1.9, or create an impermissible conflict under Rule 1.7. The guardrail is conversational: internal recruiters should not get into the substance of ongoing work. Recruiting conversations can cover interest, timing, practice fit, and compensation without ever touching matter-specific or client-specific information, and staying on that side of the line is the most reliable way to keep an introductory call from drifting into confidentiality or conflicts territory.

Beyond the legal analysis, there is a market reality that firms considering this approach cannot ignore. The legal recruiting community is small and relational. Internal recruiters who cold call aggressively into peer firms will encounter—and may permanently alienate—the very professionals whose cooperation they need for referrals, market intelligence, and future placements. Search firms, in-house recruiting teams, and bar association talent networks operate in tightly overlapping ecosystems. Reputations travel fast.

Internal recruiters who cold call aggressively into peer firms will encounter—and may permanently alienate—the very professionals whose cooperation they need for referrals, market intelligence, and future placements.

A firm that instructs its internal staff to cold call directly into AmLaw peers may find that those peers respond in kind—directing their own recruiting resources toward the same firm’s lawyers. The deterrent effect of mutual vulnerability is real, and it functions as an informal but effective check on the most aggressive practices. There is also the question of what unsolicited outreach signals to the targets themselves. Lawyers who receive cold calls from a competitor firm’s internal staff may find the contact unwelcome or report it to their own management. Even where the conduct is entirely lawful, reputational consequences can follow. And for firms that rely on search firms as recruiting partners, aggressive in-house cold calling into competitor firms is likely to strain those relationships in ways that have real costs at the negotiating table and in candidate pipelines.

The law does not prohibit internal recruiting staff from cold calling lawyers at other firms. But the absence of a flat prohibition is not an authorization to proceed without care. Firms considering the practice should take several steps before launching any direct outreach program. First, consult with outside ethics counsel in each jurisdiction where the firm operates to identify any state-specific restrictions. Second, train internal recruiting staff on the limits of permissible conversation—specifically, that recruiting discussions must not veer into matter-specific or client-specific information. Third, consider the relationship and reputational dimensions carefully, particularly the firm’s dependence on external search partners whose goodwill and market access cannot easily be replaced.

A thoughtful, professionally conducted direct recruiting program can likely be structured within the law. An unmanaged, high-volume cold calling operation into peer firms is a different matter entirely—and an unnecessary one. The legal and ethical risks are manageable with the right protocols in place. The professional and relational risks are harder to undo once the damage is done.