Our Articles

Written by Chris Demaillet, Founder of Montclair Chef. I run a chef placement agency. So you'd expect me to argue every family office should use one. I don't, and here's why.

About a third of the family offices that approach Montclair Chef end up not hiring us. Some of them go direct. Some of them already have someone in mind. Some of them realise after our first call that they don't actually need a placement service yet, they need to define what they're looking for first.

I'm telling you this because most agency content is sales material dressed up as guidance. This one isn't. There are real situations where a family office should not engage a chef agency, and pretending otherwise wastes everyone's time, especially mine. Here's the honest breakdown.

An agency placement that works runs for years. One that shouldn't have happened costs both sides money and reputation. The agency that knows when to say no is the one worth working with.

What a chef agency actually does (and what it doesn't)

A real chef placement agency does three things well:

• Sources chefs who aren't visible on public job boards
• Vets candidates with industry knowledge that outsiders can't replicate
• Provides a replacement guarantee if the placement doesn't work

A real chef agency does NOT do:

• Magic. We can't conjure a fit where the brief is wrong.
• Talent acquisition for short-term gigs. That's event work.
• Long-term household management. That's the estate manager's job.
• Help you decide whether you need a chef in the first place. That decision is yours.

If you're approaching an agency expecting the second list, the relationship will frustrate both sides.

When a family office should NOT use an agency

Five specific situations where I either decline the work or recommend direct hire.

1. You're hiring for a single event or short-term gig

This is the most common mismatch. A family office reaches out because the principal is hosting a 30-person dinner in two weeks and needs a chef for that night. Or the family is renting a villa in Sardinia for August and needs cooking support.

That's not what a placement agency does. That's event catering or short-term hire. Use a specialist event company, a Michelin-starred guest chef, or one of the platforms designed for short-term bookings. The fee structure and vetting depth of a placement agency doesn't make sense for a one-week engagement.

For a single ski week, a holiday cottage, or a yacht charter that needs catering, hire direct. We don't take that work and most serious placement agencies don't either.

2. You already have a chef you trust, and you just need to re-contract them

Some family offices come to us thinking they need agency support to formalise an arrangement with a chef the principal already knows. The chef has cooked for the family informally. The principal wants to bring them on full-time. They think the agency adds protection.

It doesn't. We add value when there's a search to run. If the chef is already identified, hire them direct. Use an employment lawyer for the contract. We're an unnecessary middle layer.

3. The principal hasn't actually decided what they want yet

Sometimes a family office is told to "find a chef" before the principal has thought through whether they want a full-time chef, a part-time chef, a chef shared across two households, or just a strong rotation of caterers and outside chefs.

If you bring us in at this stage, we'll spend three meetings clarifying the brief and the principal will change their mind once we present candidates. That's a frustrating loop for everyone.

Before engaging an agency, the principal should be able to answer:

• Full-time, part-time, or seasonal?
• One residence, or travelling between residences?
• Live-in, live-out, or hybrid?
• Approximate compensation range
• Whether the chef is reporting to the principal directly or to the estate manager

If those answers are still shifting, hold off on engaging us. Define the role first. Then we can find the chef.

4. The household has had three chefs leave in 18 months

This is the hardest conversation I have. A family office reaches out because they've cycled through chefs and need another one. The agency's instinct should be to help. My instinct, after 20 years inside these kitchens, is to slow down.

Three departures in a short window means one of two things. Either the brief was wrong and we keep hiring against the same wrong target, or there's something about the household environment that chefs can't sustain. Maybe it's the principal's working style. Maybe it's the structure of authority in the household. Maybe it's a culture clash with existing staff.

I won't take the search until we've spent at least an hour diagnosing what happened to the previous three chefs. Otherwise we're just queuing up the fourth quit, which serves nobody. If the family office isn't open to that conversation, an agency isn't the right partner for them right now. A household consultant or executive search firm specialising in private service might be a better starting point.

5. The budget doesn't match the role being scoped

A family office sometimes scopes a role at "private chef for a UHNW family, multi-residence, including yacht season, Michelin-trained, fluent in French and English, comfortable with high-protocol dietary requirements" and then mentions a salary in the range of $90,000 to $110,000.

That role doesn't exist at that budget. The market for what's being described starts at $180,000 and runs much higher.

I tell the family office directly. If they can adjust either the role or the budget, we can work together. If they can't or won't, an agency engagement will only lead to frustration. We'll present candidates who match the scope and the family will balk at the cost. Or we'll present candidates who match the budget and the family will reject them as underqualified.

This is the situation where a family office should NOT use an agency: when the role being asked for and the compensation being offered are mathematically incompatible. Fix that first. Then call us.

When an agency IS the right choice

For balance, here are the situations where engaging an agency is unambiguously the right move.

Multi-residence travel placements

A chef who flies with the family across three or four residences requires verification that goes well beyond reference calls. We know who travels well and who burns out by month eight. That's hard-won information that only comes from years inside the industry.

Specialist dietary or health-focused placements

Health and nutrition chefs, kosher private chefs, chefs trained in specific cultural cuisines at UHNW level. These pools are small and not on public job boards. We know who's available because we've placed them before, or they've called us about their next role.

When a previous direct hire didn't work

If you've already tried direct hire and the chef left, an agency engagement protects against repeating the same mistake. The replacement guarantee is the structural advantage that direct hire cannot offer.

When the family office doesn't have time for an extended search

A proper chef search runs 80 to 120 hours of work over four to eight weeks. If the family office is already managing six other workstreams, the chef search will get half attention and half results. Agency placement is a way to buy back that time.

When the principal is high-profile and discretion is non-negotiable

A serious agency operates with NDAs as standard and never publishes client information. Public job boards and self-directed search expose the household to risks that an experienced agency mitigates.

What I tell family offices on the first call

Before I take any engagement, I ask three questions:

1. What does the principal actually want, in their own words? (Not what the family office thinks they want.)
2. Has the household had a chef before, and how did the last placement end?
3. What's the realistic budget, fully loaded with benefits?

If the answers are clear, we can usually scope an engagement in 30 minutes. If they're not, I tell the family office to come back when they are. There's no rush on my end. A bad placement hurts my reputation more than walking away from a poorly scoped search.

The agency that knows when to say no

Most agencies will take any engagement because the fee is the same regardless of fit. That's the wrong incentive. The right model is to take only the engagements where the placement is genuinely likely to last.

If you're a family office considering whether to engage an agency or hire direct, the honest answer is: it depends on the specifics of your household, the principal's clarity, and the role being scoped. A 30-minute conversation usually surfaces whether agency placement is the right path for your specific situation.

Schedule a confidential consultation and we'll work through your situation. If the answer is that you don't need us, I'll tell you. That's the same answer I'd want if I were on your side of the table.

About the author

Chris Demaillet is the Founder of Montclair Chef, a chef-founded private chef placement agency for UHNW families, family offices, and estates, headquartered in Monaco with operations in New York, Miami, Los Angeles, and London.

Michelin-trained under Michel Roux OBE, Chris spent nearly 10 years as personal chef to Amancio Ortega (founder of Zara) aboard the 70m M/Y Drizzle, and has cooked for billionaire industrialists, Middle Eastern royal families, a British Lord, and American tech principals across more than 25 years in private service.

He is the author of The Private Chef Guide (2026) and The Yacht Chef Guide (2020).

Read Chris's full story or schedule a confidential consultation.

‍