Are Boomerang Hires Coming Back?

Following an article mentioning that boomerang hires were on the increase, there has been considerable discussion at Fry & Brown about these so-called “boomerang hires” – employees who return to a company after leaving. And it seems to be a subject that divides opinion. Within the financial services sector there are often policies that do not allow lawyers to return to a previous employer, especially following a redundancy. But other companies welcome good talent that they have previously lost. For some lawyers, going back can be a smart career move, whist for others, it can feel like a backwards step that only delays an inevitable second exit.

There are obvious reasons why a return can be attractive. A familiar environment often means less disruption, both for the individual and for the employer. A lawyer coming back into an in-house financial services team already understands the business, the culture and the regulatory pressures. And of course it is cheaper to hire a known entity, both in terms of time spent training and recruitment fees. The integration period is shorter, and from a hiring perspective, there is usually a sense of comfort in bringing someone back who has already been “tried and tested.” In some cases, there are also personal relationships which can attract a team member back. A lawyer might leave in search of progression, only to find that the role they had hoped for opens up in the very place they left. For others, the grass simply does not turn out to be greener elsewhere. Recent UK research found that many professionals admit regretting a move once the reality of a new workplace sets in, which also explains why the pull of the familiar can feel so strong.

There is also a more positive angle to consider. Lawyers who return rarely come back exactly the same as when they left. Time spent in another organisation often means exposure to different systems, new regulatory approaches and alternative ways of managing teams. That can inject fresh thinking and renewed energy into an in-house legal function. In the UK, some firms are beginning to recognise the value of maintaining strong alumni relationships, keeping the door open for talented lawyers to return at the right time. Rather than viewing departures as a permanent loss, more businesses are starting to treat their alumni as a long-term talent pool that can be re-engaged when mutual circumstances align.

But while the positives are worth acknowledging, it would be unrealistic to ignore the difficulties. For many, the reasons they walked away the first time are still there. If a lawyer left because of poor management, a lack of meaningful progression, or an unsustainable work–life balance, those issues rarely disappear overnight. Going back in such circumstances can mean quickly falling back into old frustrations. Research from Birmingham City University suggests that although returning employees often perform solidly in the short term, they are statistically more likely to leave again when compared with new hires. That should make both employers and candidates pause before rushing into a reunion.

There is also the question of perception. Colleagues may view a return with scepticism, particularly if the individual is brought back on better terms than those who stayed. Similarly, a lawyer who comes back in desperation after a move elsewhere did not work out may find it difficult to shake off the impression that they are settling rather than thriving. In some teams, those dynamics can be just as damaging as the original reasons for leaving.

For lawyers thinking about returning, the decision should involve real self-reflection. Why did you leave in the first place? Has that situation genuinely changed? Is someone flattering you to tempt you back? What new skills or perspectives would you be bringing back? And how do you want this next chapter in your career to look in one, two or even five years? These are not easy questions, but they are worth answering honestly.

Equally, for employers in the financial services sector, the challenge lies in distinguishing between a lawyer who is coming back with renewed value and one who is simply circling back because the last move did not work out. The reason for the original departure and length of time passed should both be taken into consideration. Getting that judgment right can mean the difference between a successful, long-term re-engagement and another departure within a couple of years.

At Fry & Brown, we see examples of both outcomes. Some boomerang hires thrive, bringing fresh energy and loyalty. Others leave again, confirming that the original issues had not really gone away. It is a nuanced subject, and one we know sparks strong opinions. And this is all without discussing returning to private practice from in-house.

So what do you think?

If you are a lawyer, have you ever returned to a previous employer, and was it the right choice?

If you are hiring, have you welcomed back someone who had left, and how did it play out in the long term?

We would love to hear your experiences.

Nov 2025