Two recruiters claim the same finance hire: build the fee record

When two recruiters claim a fee for the same finance appointment, the company needs a factual timeline and the relevant agreements. The earliest résumé in an inbox may be important evidence, but it does not by itself determine every contractual outcome. An introduction, an existing application, a retained assignment and a later hire can have different meanings under the terms the parties accepted.

Assign one internal owner to assemble the record. That person should coordinate HR, the hiring manager, procurement and finance so each recruiter receives consistent factual information. Keep the matter separate from the candidate's assessment. The employer still needs to decide whether the person is suitable, and the candidate should not be asked to adjudicate the company's obligations to its suppliers.

This is an evidence and purchasing review, not a rule for deciding which recruiter is legally entitled to payment. Obtain appropriate legal advice where the agreements conflict or a material claim is disputed. The useful first step is to give that reviewer a complete record instead of a collection of recollections about who first knew the candidate.

Collect every relevant signed engagement, accepted set of terms, amendment and written instruction. Identify the employer entity, covered role, fee trigger, introduction definition, protected period and any exclusivity provision. A claim may concern a later appointment to a different role or an affiliate, so include those facts rather than limiting the search to the final vacancy title.

Check how each agreement treats candidates already known to the employer. It may require a particular notification or evidence within a stated period. Do not assume that a historical application automatically excludes a fee, or that a recruiter sending a résumé automatically creates one. The actual terms and applicable law need review. Preserve the correspondence that shows what the company accepted and when.

AESC's client standards call for written clarity about executive-search assignments and commercial terms for its members. That supports requesting a clear engagement record, but the association's standards do not settle a dispute involving two particular firms. Keep professional standards, contract language and the company's own preferred practice distinct in the working file.

List the dates of prior applications, recruiter submissions, candidate consent where relevant, employer responses, interviews, role changes, offer and start. Link each event to its original record. An applicant-tracking-system entry may show when someone entered data rather than when an introduction occurred, so preserve both the source event and the administrative timestamp when they differ.

For a fictional sequence, a controller candidate applies directly in January, Recruiter A submits the person for a finance-director role in March, and Recruiter B arranges a discussion for a CFO role in June. The company appoints the person in August. That chronology establishes several contacts; it does not establish which agreement, if any, creates the final fee. The reviewer needs the roles, accepted terms and communications beside the dates.

Record gaps openly. If a hiring manager remembers a telephone introduction but there is no contemporaneous note, identify it as a recollection. Do not recreate an old message or change a system date to strengthen the company's position. Ask the relevant people for factual accounts while the events are still fresh, and retain conflicting evidence for review.

One firm may introduce the candidate while another later performs assessment, references or offer coordination. Determine whether those services were separately commissioned and how the fee provisions address them. The fact that useful work occurred does not answer every contractual question, but it is relevant to an informed commercial discussion and should not disappear from the record.

Identify instructions given outside the normal procurement channel. A manager may have asked a second recruiter to approach the person without checking an existing assignment. Preserve the request and establish whether the manager had authority under company policy. That internal question can require a process correction even when the supplier's external claim still needs separate legal review.

Avoid labeling the candidate as owned by either firm. The issue is the scope of the recruiters' contractual rights and the services commissioned by the employer. Keep correspondence focused on those rights and events. Clear language reduces the chance that a fee discussion unnecessarily restricts the candidate's opportunity or becomes a personal dispute among the participants.

Calculate each asserted fee using its stated compensation base and terms. In a hypothetical dispute, one recruiter claims 20 percent of a $200,000 base salary, or $40,000. Another claims 25 percent of the same base, or $50,000. The combined assertions are $90,000, but that total is not a conclusion that both amounts are owed. Record accepted, disputed and unresolved amounts separately for the accounting reviewer.

Include deposits or retainers already paid, credits, separately authorized assessment charges and any relevant minimum fee. A settlement proposal can look cheaper while leaving an earlier payment uncredited. Reconcile the proposed total outcome against all amounts already transferred and the obligations the settlement would resolve.

Give finance the current evidence and the responsible reviewer's position for the applicable accounting assessment. A disputed invoice should not be silently deleted, and a procurement spreadsheet should not decide liability recognition by itself. Preserve the invoice, claim basis and status so payment controls and reporting use the same information.

Share only the information needed to establish the relevant events and contractual calculation. A recruiter may need the agreed compensation figure for a fee calculation without receiving the candidate's entire employment file. References, identification documents, personal circumstances and unrelated interview notes should not be circulated simply because several parties are arguing about an introduction.

The FTC's business guidance recommends limiting personal information and access to a legitimate need. Use approved channels and restricted access for the chronology and attachments. Check the recipient list before sending a response, especially when the employer, recruiters and external advisers have separate teams. Keep any required preservation of records consistent with legal advice and the company's retention process.

Provide the candidate with an appropriate point of contact for the hiring process. Do not ask them to change their account to support a preferred fee outcome. If their factual input is necessary, explain the narrow question and preserve the answer accurately. The company's commercial dispute should not make the assessment or onboarding process unpredictable without a clear, justified reason.

Document the final resolution with the parties and appropriate advisers. The record should identify the amount, covered appointment, treatment of prior payments and claims resolved. If the company negotiates a commercial settlement without deciding every contested interpretation, preserve that distinction. Do not let an informal promise in a telephone call become the only support for the final payment.

Then correct the process that allowed uncertainty to develop. Use one route for recruiter submissions, record existing candidate contacts when a search begins, and check new assignments against current exclusivity and introduction terms. Give hiring managers a practical way to ask for a terms review before involving another firm. A control that requires them to discover every historical contract on their own is unlikely to work consistently.

Retain the engagement, chronology, calculation and resolution with the supplier record. The next finance search can then begin with clear candidate intake and fee responsibilities. The aim is a hiring process that can use several sources of talent when authorized while giving the company enough evidence to explain what each recruiter was engaged to do.