Growing concern around AI is understandable among junior in-house lawyers. Tasks that once provided the foundation of an early legal career, including first-pass contract reviews, legal research, document comparison and routine drafting, can now be completed a lot quicker with legal technology. 

This means adoption is accelerating at an unprecedented rate. Thomson Reuters reported that 47% of corporate legal departments were using generative AI in 2026, compared with 23% in 2025.  The technology still has its limitations, and many legal teams have yet to implement it fully, but its direction of travel is clear.

The Immediate Risk

General counsels in financial services are already admitting they can see AI replacing junior lawyers, or at least reducing the number of junior lawyers they need.

This development comes at a difficult time as the SQE and qualifying work experience route has created more flexible ways to qualify, including through in-house and paralegal roles. More juniors are qualifying as lawyers, yet the qualification does not always lead to a newly qualified solicitor position. Many lawyers remain in paralegal posts, often on the same salary, while competing against strong candidates moving from private practice, and others are let go when they qualify.

As hiring for in-house legal departments becomes more selective, technical legal expertise alone won’t be enough. Employers will increasingly value lawyers who embrace AI and are innovative in the way they use it.

Legal Teams Still Need a Future Pipeline

There is also a longer-term issue to consider for General Counsel and Heads of Legal. Whilst law firms will continue to offer structured career development for trainees through to partner, the lack of junior lawyers working in-house means that there might not be the same pool of candidates with in-house experience for GCs to choose from when it comes to hiring at the mid to senior level.

Junior lawyers develop through exposure, supervision and repeated involvement in real matters. If technology removes too much of that work, even legal departments who continue with junior lawyers may find they struggle to develop the experienced senior lawyers they’ll need five or ten years down the line. 

In-house legal leaders need to consider carefully the responsibilities of the junior lawyer; which tasks build judgement, how junior lawyers will gain commercial understanding and where meaningful responsibility can be introduced safely. 

SRA research into qualifying work experience found that candidates valued varied legal experience, while 73% felt it helped prepare them to practise effectively. That development still requires time, feedback and access to experienced lawyers.

Junior Lawyers Must Engage With AI

Whilst hiring managers usually assume the next generation of lawyers will be more tech and AI savvy, we are seeing quite the reverse within some legal teams. Occasionally junior lawyers are cautious about embracing AI because they’re concerned they could do themselves out of a job. And the reverse is true of senior lawyers, who maybe throwing themselves into it, knowing it is the only way of future proofing their roles – however much they may not want to! The truth is that avoiding the technology is unlikely to protect their position and will actually make it harder to compete for future roles. 

A better approach is to learn how approved tools work, understand their limitations and become confident in reviewing their output. The Association of Corporate Counsel’s updated AI toolkit offers practical guidance specifically for in-house teams. 

Junior lawyers should also develop the skills that technology can’t reliably replicate, for example stakeholder management, business awareness, negotiation and judgement. These are the qualities that support progression into senior legal and leadership roles. 

For Heads of Legal, the priority should be around thoughtful workforce planning. AI can improve capacity, but every efficiency decision should be considered alongside training, succession and the future structure of the team. 

The junior in-house lawyer still has an important role, but that role is rapidly changing, and both lawyers and employers need to prepare for it now.

Have you considered how AI will affect the structure of your legal team? What are you doing to future proof yourself in your career? And how are you embracing AI as a junior lawyer?

Jul 2027

Salary transparency is a hot topic at the minute, especially when many employers across Europe are already being pushed to disclose salary ranges, and new rules are expected to come into force that make this a standard practice. 

This raises a fair question for the UK market, particularly within financial services. Should we be heading in the same direction, and if so, what would that look like in practice for lawyers looking to move in-house and financial services legal teams looking to hire?

Where The UK Currently Stands

At the moment, salary transparency in the UK is inconsistent. Some employers include clear ranges within their job adverts, whilst others prefer to keep these discussions until later in the hiring process. As it stands, there is no legal requirement to disclose salary bands upfront, although there has certainly been ongoing discussion around pay gap reporting and fair pay practices. 

The EU’s Pay Transparency Directive, which EU countries are expected to introduce over the next few years, is no doubt going to put increasing pressure on the UK. It requires employers to provide salary ranges in job adverts as well as giving employees greater access to information about pay structures. Whilst the UK is no longer bound by EU law, changes in Europe do still tend to shape expectations here, especially in sectors such as financial services that operate across borders. The European Commission has also made it clear that greater transparency is seen as an important step in tackling pay inequality.

What This Means for Lawyers Moving In-House

For lawyers considering a move into in-house roles within financial services, clearer salary information could be really beneficial. Currently lots of candidates are navigating processes with limited visibility on compensation until relatively late in the recruitment journey, which can lead to frustrating misalignment and wasted time.

Greater transparency would allow candidates to assess potential roles more realistically from the very beginning. It would also make it easier to compare their opportunities across organisations, especially in financial services where bonuses and benefits can vary significantly.

There is a downside though. When salary ranges are set out clearly, there is usually less room to negotiate beyond them. Companies would also need to keep pay consistent internally, which would limit how flexible they can be when making offers.

Employers are unlikely to put full benefits and bonus details on job adverts either, meaning that a lawyer might dismiss a lower paid position without knowing that it comes with an excellent benefits such as pension, holiday and equity. The details of any discretionary bonus wouldn’t be published and with bonuses in financial services varying from none to 50% and more this is something that most lawyers would want to consider.

The Recruiter and Client Perspective

For recruiters, salary transparency can simplify some parts of the process while complicating others. Clear salary bands can reduce the number of unsuitable applications, help set expectations early, and reduce the risk of deals falling through at the offer stage. However, assessing candidate suitability is part of our role as a recruiter and in many ways, we would prefer to do this than miss a star candidate by reducing the interest, especially in today’s market.

Salary transparency can also reduce flexibility. Recruiters often work with clients who want to adjust their offers depending on the person they hire. Fixed salary bands can make it harder to reflect differences in experience or specialist skills, particularly in specialist legal roles. 

From a client perspective, transparency requires salary bands to be well thought through and internally consistent. This can be helpful, as it encourages organisations to review how they benchmark roles and reward performance, but it can also bring inconsistencies to light that then need to be addressed. Longer term, this can only help to close pay gaps, which is what the EU directive is required to do.

For lawyers moving into financial services from private practice there is an added complication. Law is one of very few vocations where people regularly choose to move to a different industry (in this case financial services) and expect to take a pay cut.  Private practice lawyers rarely know what level of salary to expect on moving in-house when they come to us and their expectations change as they come to understand the market. But for some, when they are taking such a huge hit on base salary anyway, they normally still won’t want to discount opportunities if they have no set financial demands. It also further complicates things if they are considering multiple industries.

Should The UK Follow The EU?

There is a strong argument that the UK will move in this direction, even if not immediately through legislation, because candidates are increasingly reluctant to engage with roles that lack basic information on pay.

That said, a full move to mandatory transparency is not guaranteed, especially in sectors that value discretion around compensation. Financial services firms might also be a fair bit slower to adopt a uniform approach, given the complexity of their reward structures. 

A gradual change is the most likely prediction, with more organisations beginning to publish their salary ranges, either to remain competitive in hiring or to align with international standards. For lawyers exploring in-house roles, that could mean a much more straightforward process. For clients, it may require a bit more work at the outset, but it should simplify the hiring process over time.

Jul 2026

The in-house legal market, particularly across financial services, has been difficult to read over the past few years. But speaking regularly with clients, candidates, and others across the wider recruitment market, the same themes seem to be cropping up. And with AI making it easier for us track these trends, we can confidently say that they are being felt across the board, including by recruiters working in private practice. 

Since Covid, things have been pretty volatile. There was the initial slowdown, followed by a period where more senior roles opened up as people reassessed their priorities or stepped away from long-term careers. That was then followed by a surge at the junior end, with private practice firms offering salaries that made it very difficult for in-house teams to compete. 

More recently, things have slowed again, with political instability, the cost of living, and wider global events all contributing to a lack of sustained growth. When businesses are unsure about what is coming next, hiring is often one of the first areas to pause.

Hiring Is Happening, But More Cautiously

There are still vacancies in the financial services markets, but the way businesses approach hiring has changed. Many organisations are operating more carefully, with cost control and efficiency taking priority. Growth plans and investment are being delayed or scaled back, which has a direct impact on recruitment. 

Even where there is a need, commitment to hiring is not always there from the outset. Processes can be long, and it’s not unusual for candidates to reach the final stages only for a business to step back and reconsider whether they want to hire at all. In some cases, roles only move forward if a candidate really stands out against the grain and our client secures their first choice.

This is also reflected in the type of roles available. While there is still a reasonable supply of very junior positions, lots of clients are focused on hiring experienced lawyers who can come in and add value straight away. The previous sweet spot of around three to six years’ qualification is currently one of the more challenging times to move.

What Skills Are in Demand?

In terms of skill sets, it’s been some time since we’ve seen consistent demand for corporate lawyers, which was once a route that almost guaranteed you a move in-house. 

General commercial and commercial contracts lawyers are still in demand, but most need something extra to be able to secure the top roles, such as relevant experience in areas like insurance, retail banking or fintech, or more specialised expertise in data protection, technology (including the constantly talked about AI) or digital assets.

There has been some increase in transactional roles, particularly across derivatives, capital markets, structured finance and securitisation. Demand for regulatory lawyers and litigators has also been present, although less consistent. We’ve seen an exceptional need for employment lawyers where demand has remained stronger, particularly in light of upcoming changes in employment law.

In terms of industries, the busiest space is still the fintech sector as well as other innovative financial services companies, both UK and US headquartered. There has also been significant demand from brokerages where there has been some consolidation and growth, with more traditional banks, investment managers and insurers remaining quieter by comparison.

A Longer-Term View

Whilst the current market is certainly not the easiest, it is still moving, just at a slower pace and with more scrutiny than before. With the current macro-economic and political environments being so volatile we are not expecting anything to pick up any time soon.

At Fry & Brown, our focus has always been on building relationships over time, not just placing candidates into immediate roles. That matters even more in a market like this, where timing, positioning and having the right conversations early can make a real difference when opportunities do arise.

May 2026

We were recently asked by a client during a pitch why we hadn’t provided more background and personal information about us. We didn’t think people would be interested… but in case you are – here goes! This is how we became Fry & Brown.

Tracy’s route into recruitment was not exactly conventional. Armed with a music degree, and wanting to play her euphonium rather than teach, she took brass lessons at the Royal Military School of Music and then joined the Army, spending four years with the Royal Artillery Band in Woolwich. Alongside that, she completed a degree and, in what now feels like peak twenty-something energy, worked almost full time at Pizza Express on the side. Life in barracks as the only female, alongside the Royal Artillery Motorcycle Display Team, was certainly character-building. As well as learning to ride motorbikes, it also made Tracy think seriously about what she wanted from a career: more control on progression, more opportunity to be rewarded, and a route into the City. Recruitment felt like the right fit.

Jane’s route was more direct, but driven by instincts that still define how she works today. After studying Law and French at Manchester University, she moved straight into legal recruitment and quickly realised it suited her inquisitive nature (nosiness!) and love of meeting people. By the time Tracy arrived at Badenoch & Clark in 2001, Jane had already been there for around a year.

That was where Jane and Tracy met, 25 years ago! It was the real heyday of recruitment: unapologetically work-hard, play-hard, full of energy, and an industry where ambitious graduates could learn quickly, earn well and have a lot of fun in the process. They both quickly moved into leadership roles, and when they later joined Barclay Simpson in close succession, they built the in-house legal desk from scratch and spent ten years turning it into a successful specialist business.

Those years at Barclay Simpson were important professionally, but also personally. In many ways, it was time to grow up. Life moved on, alongside their careers. They both left London, with Jane moving to South Wales and Tracy to Buckinghamshire. Jane had two children and Tracy later adopted her girls. As often happens over the course of a decade, priorities broadened and their lives became fuller, busier and more rooted outside the office.

What never changed, was how much they enjoyed the work itself. Recruitment had always suited Tracy and Jane because it is, at its heart, about people. They are both naturally sociable and still genuinely enjoy meeting new people, and they love their chosen careers for exactly that reason. Long before Fry & Brown existed as a business, they both already knew that the relationships were the part of the job that mattered most to them.

By then, it had become increasingly obvious that they worked well together. They have complementary strengths; Jane is naturally commercial, has an amazing memory and is phenomenal at forming lasting relationships. Tracy loves tech, spreadsheets and lists and the administrative side of business. With similar values and a shared view of how recruitment should be done, when the timing was right, they decided to do something they had talked about for years and build a business of their own. Fry & Brown was born from a belief that specialist recruitment should feel personal, honest and genuinely useful, not transactional.

Outside of work, there is still plenty that keeps them busy. Music gigs and active social lives take them back to their early recruitment days. Tracy plays in a local brass band, Jane plays cricket and helps with her local girls’ team (which Fry & Brown sponsor). Tracy is no longer doing Ironman triathlons, but both still run and complete marathons. Those interests may be outside work, but they say something important about who Fry & Brown are: energetic, curious, committed, and still very much engaged with people and community.

Perhaps that is why Fry & Brown has always felt like such a natural step. We wanted to build a business with expertise, certainly, but also warmth, perspective and personality. We care about the details, and we have always believed that the best recruitment happens when you really listen: to what clients need, to what candidates want, and to what might make a career move right or wrong for someone.

So that is a little more about who we are, and how Fry & Brown came to be. For those who know us already, none of this will come as much of a surprise. For those who don’t, we hope it gives a better sense of the people behind the name.

Apr 2026

Choosing a legal recruiter sounds straightforward, but for many financial services organisations it’s far from simple. Every company approaches it differently. Sometimes it’s led by a General Counsel already who knows us or has at least heard our name in the market, sometimes it’s led by HR who may have just found us online or been given our name. It can vary from a quick phone call or recommendation to a long and detailed supplier process. And often we’re brought in with no real insight into the deciding factors and who is making them.

Because these approaches vary so much, it can be difficult for us as recruiters to understand what each company is truly looking for in a recruitment partner. What one organisation sees as essential, another may barely consider. And even though we are a boutique, specialist in-house legal recruitment firm and we know our stuff, the selection process can still be quite unpredictable. This means our clients might not be getting maximum value out of the exercise and can often choose the wrong recruiter for their needs, coming back to us later when they’ve struggled to hire.

The Reality of Specialist Legal Recruitment

At Fry & Brown, we focus only on placing lawyers into the financial services sector, supporting in-house legal teams and HR departments across the industry. We do not work with law firms or industries outside of banking, insurance, asset management, private equity, venture capital, hedge funds and regulatory bodies. Our network is built around UK and common law qualified lawyers across all levels, from newly qualified through to General Counsel. Because of this focus, our strength lies in depth, not a one size fits all approach.

Whilst many of our clients value our strong network and prioritise specialist knowledge, when pitching for new business this can sometimes work against us. Some organisations want a single supplier who can cover every type of role across the business and are looking for bulk recruitment. For others it is just who is the cheapest. Of course, there is always a balance to be had but it can become difficult for recruiters to tailor their approach. Often there is a conflict between which recruiter is good for the legal team and what suits the rest of the organisation. And even with existing relationships and years of experience, we don’t always know whether the selection will come down to expertise, scale, cost, culture or something else entirely.

Why clarity is good for you

Recruitment works best when both sides understand what success looks like. When the expectations are clear, we can show exactly how our specialist knowledge, networks and market insight add value. When they aren’t, our clients risk putting significant time and effort into a process that was never the right fit from the start. It’s about prioritising transparency so we can give clients what they need, or step aside early if their priorities lie elsewhere. Clear criteria helps everyone make better decisions and avoid wasting time.

So what should matter most to you?

When choosing a legal recruiter, every organisation has its own priorities. For some, it’s all about track record. For others, it’s personality and communication style. Some value deep sector expertise. Others want broad role coverage. The real question to consider is, which factors will genuinely lead to better hires for your legal team? 

Things you may consider include: 

• Past performance 
• Specialist financial services knowledge 
• Recommendations 
• Ability to fill multiple role types 
• Network strength 
• Experience with competitors 
• Compliance, values and policies
• Technology and AI capabilities 
• Gut feeling and cultural fit
• Pleasantness and responsiveness
• Fees 

A Final Thought

Selecting a recruitment partner is an important decision, especially in a market as specific and regulated as financial services. Being clear from the start about what matters to you will ensure you choose the recruiter who will deliver the best results for your legal team.

Jan 2026

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

What’s Really Going on in the In-House Legal Market

You may have heard it repeatedly in industry updates and the press: the legal job market is quiet, and opportunities are limited. On the face of it, that should mean that legal teams who are hiring should find it straightforward. If there are fewer options for lawyers, surely the financial services companies who are hiring should find many more candidates applying to each new role? Yet many HR teams and Heads of Legal are finding the opposite to be true. Lawyers aren’t moving. Vacancies remain unfilled for months, shortlists are thinner than expected, and the right candidates are frustratingly elusive.

The reality is more complex than headlines suggest. Lawyers are hearing that the market is tough and because this is the first time in a long time that it has tough for so long it is causing them to stay put rather than explore new roles. In uncertain times, staying put feels like the safer option. Stability, a familiar culture, and predictable income outweigh the perceived risk of moving. Even when an exciting opportunity does arise, candidates don’t want to make the jump without other options to consider. Instead of feeling grateful for an offer, they become hesitant, concerned that making the wrong move now could limit their options later.

There are always lawyers that need to move – if they are unhappy in their role, underpaid, made redundant. But those who are happy are just not tempted to even consider moving with so few options in the market and the rhetoric sounding less than positive. Those that do dip their toe in the water, find there is no big sell from hiring teams. With cost cutting and efficiency modes fully in play, there can often a lack of excitement about the organisation and a lack of career progression for the individual.

Salary expectations play a significant role. During the boom years before and just after the pandemic, lawyers often saw significant increases in pay when moving roles. That upward momentum has slowed, and in today’s market, offers are often closer to current salaries than candidates would like. Many lawyers are still anchored to the expectations set in busier times, so the financial incentive to move is no longer as compelling. This misalignment between expectation and reality can create additional hesitation. A recent Reuters report highlighted that UK employers are reporting weaker hiring plans and slower pay growth this year, reinforcing why many professionals are hesitant to move without a significant step up. Lawyers are therefore often close to offer stage before deciding to withdraw which can be very frustrating for hiring managers. Financial services companies demand the best talent but are struggling to attract them.

The issue is further complicated by the profile of many hiring organisations. Fintechs, start-ups, and businesses still working towards profitability may represent some of the most exciting opportunities, but they can also be perceived as risky. For lawyers weighing up a move, especially those with financial commitments or families, the perceived security of a large, well-established bank or asset manager can be difficult to match. Even where the work itself is engaging, questions around long-term stability can deter otherwise strong candidates.

Beyond pay and security, lawyers are increasingly weighing cultural and lifestyle factors. Work-life balance, hybrid or remote working, mental health support, and clarity around hours are now central considerations. If your hiring process feels overly drawn out (often the case in a tougher market), if communication is lacking, or if the impression is that flexibility will be minimal, candidates are quick to lose interest. In a market where fewer people are looking to move, even small frictions in the process can make a big difference.

It is also worth recognising that skill mismatches play a part. Many lawyers interested in moving in-house from private practice may not yet have the experience that financial services roles demand. Employers are more demanding in a harder market, often look for a blend of qualities that can be rare: private practice technical skills, commercial awareness, regulatory expertise, and in-house experience. When this list of requirements is paired with a cautious candidate pool, it is no surprise that hiring feels harder than ever.

So, where does that leave you if you need to build or strengthen your legal team? The good news is that you don’t need dozens of applications to succeed. You only need one great candidate. But to find and secure that individual, you need to adapt to the realities of today’s market. That means working with a specialist recruiter who knows the financial services legal landscape inside out, someone who understands how to reach passive candidates and present your opportunity in the right way. It also means running a smooth and efficient hiring process, being transparent about expectations, and communicating clearly what makes your role attractive.

Above all, it means recognising that candidates are weighing up more than just salary. They are looking for assurance about stability, clarity about career development, and a sense that their personal priorities, such as flexibility and work-life balance, will be respected. The organisations that make these points clear are the ones that win trust and ultimately hire successfully.

At Fry & Brown, we specialise in helping financial services businesses navigate these challenges. We understand the cautious mindset of today’s legal candidates, and we know how to connect you with the right people. If you are finding it more difficult to hire than you expected, get in touch with us to discuss how we can help you secure the talent your team needs.

Oct 2025

In the fast-paced world of financial services, the period between offering and accepting a job offer can be full of tension. In-house legal teams often anticipate swift decisions, while legal candidates may need time to deliberate. Understanding both perspectives is crucial for a smooth and respectful recruitment process, which hopefully ends with a hire.

The employer’s perspective – the need for prompt decisions

From an employer’s standpoint, a prompt response to a job offer is often essential. Delays can obstruct project timelines and affect existing and future team dynamics. In the legal industry where talent is in high demand, prolonged decision-making can result in losing a second choice candidate to a competitor. Headcount can also be at risk of being pulled when too much time is wasted. So often, hiring processes that should be straight forward have already been subject to huge delays. Legal managers who are relieved to have finally got to offer stage may well be frustrated by any further delays at this point, especially when they have been led to believe the candidate will accept. When an offer is made, it is personal. The employer likes the applicant, and wants to work with them and thinks they are a good fit. Whilst we all work for money and everyone understands that an offer is commercial transaction, the main reason people stay in (as well as leave) jobs is the people, and feelings cannot be ignored when an offer is not immediately accepted.

The candidate’s perspective – making an informed choice

Recognising that candidates may have multiple offers or personal considerations is essential. Moving in-house from private practice is an important career move for a lawyer accepting a new job offer. It’s reasonable to request time to evaluate the offer thoroughly. This time allows for assessing the alignment of the role with long-term goals, the company’s culture with the candidate’s values, and time to confer with family and consider personal circumstances. With hiring processes taking longer than ever, lawyers often have to wait a long time for feedback on their CVs, for interviews to be arranged, and for approvals and the process to complete. To be asked to make an instant decision when one has waited so long can often feel uncomfortable and pressurising. Having the space to be certain is reassuring.

When a lawyer has got as far as final stage for more than one position, it is highly likely that they are keen on both roles and that there strong positives for each option. Candidates will not want to withdraw from one position to accept another so close to the end without having the opportunity to compare packages.

While it’s acceptable to take time, and unreasonable for employers not to allow some time, candidates should clearly communicate their intentions throughout the process. Nothing needs to be shared that would jeopardise any offer, but employers do not like to feel misled or to be thrown a curve ball at the final hurdle. Expressing passion for the role, while requesting a specific timeframe to decide can reassure employers of genuine interest. Typically, a 24 to 48-hour window is standard to verbally accept, but this can usually be increased up to a week depending on the situation and the role’s seniority and complexity. Closer to 2 weeks? I would expect employers to have concerns.

Best practice for employers and candidates

For Employers

• Set clear expectations. When extending an offer, specify the timeframe within which you would like a response.
• Enquire (and be understanding) about the candidate’s other recruitment processes, their personal situation, and the state of the market.
• Use it as an opportunity to get feedback on the process.
• Maintain clear communication. Regularly check in with the recruitment consultant candidates during their decision-making period to address any concerns or questions.
• Be prepared for negotiations. Understand that candidates may have questions or make counteroffers and be ready to engage in constructive discussions.
• Asking for an improvement in the offer shows that they are commercial, a skill that you will benefit from if the work for your company.
• Giving them more space to make the informed decision means they will make the right decision, will stay with you longer. and be a happier employee.

For Candidates

• Keep the recruiter informed during the process so that other offers, high salary expectations, and any extra time required to decide doesn’t come as a surprise at the end.
• Communicate promptly. Acknowledge receipt of the offer and express appreciation.
• Be transparent. If you are considering other opportunities, it’s courteous to inform the employer, without divulging excessive detail.
• Avoid premature acceptance. Only accept an offer when you are confident in your decision. Retracting an acceptance can damage professional relationships. 
• Offers aren’t legally binding until a contract is signed, adding further nuance to how decisions should be managed, but you should only be looking to negotiate or withdraw at this stage if there is something concerning in the contract.

Balancing the urgency to fill positions with candidates’ need for deliberation is key to successfully managing the recruitment process. Clear communication, mutual respect, and understanding of each other’s positions can lead to successful outcomes for employers and candidates.

For legal professionals and HR teams in financial services, a collective approach helps ensure the best decisions are made for everyone involved. Employers can express the urgency of their needs, whilst still allowing reasonable time for candidates to decide, which demonstrates respect and promotes goodwill.

Jul 2025

If you are a lawyer in private practice hoping to make the leap in-house, especially into financial services, you may be wondering if the market will ever bounce back. The truth? It’s been a bumpy ride. But despite the gloom, there is still plenty of reason to stay optimistic (and proactive).

Let’s take a quick look at where we are now.

Coming out of the pandemic, the in-house market was booming. Legal teams in banks, insurers, asset managers and fintechs were hiring like mad to catch up with regulatory and commercial demand.

Fast-forward to today, and hiring has stalled at many institutions. Why? Because uncertainty has become the norm. Since 2022, we have had a cost-of-living crisis, energy shocks, geopolitical instability in Ukraine and the Middle East, tech layoffs, and an unpredictable UK and now US political scene.

Every time the market looks like it might stabilise, something else derails the momentum. And as any hiring manager will tell you, uncertainty is the enemy of headcount approval.

A market in flux

According to the latest KPMG and REC UK Report on Jobs, UK businesses have scaled back permanent hiring plans in early 2025 amid continued economic uncertainty. Professional services, legal included, are particularly cautious, with overall vacancy growth slowing and candidate availability increasing due to redundancies and paused recruitment activity.

In-house legal teams are far from idle. In fact, they are busier than ever, especially in financial services, where regulatory obligations continue to mount. But transactional work is still lagging behind, and without the commercial growth to match the regulatory workload and justify hiring, teams are stretched thin.

The result? Legal departments are hesitant to grow, even when they are overwhelmed.

Fintechs, once the go-to for agile legal opportunities, have also taken a hit. Many have scaled back hiring or are only seeking experienced hires who can make an immediate impact. Junior lawyers looking to break in, are finding fewer open doors.

Whilst in private practice, salary wars pushed junior pay through the roof, in-house roles which tend to prioritise work-life balance over cash, haven’t kept up. That salary gap has made the move feel less attractive, especially when hiring isn’t exactly booming. 

Cautious optimism remains

As reported by Reuters on May 11, 2025, UK employers are maintaining a careful approach to hiring amid ongoing economic uncertainties. Surveys indicate that businesses are slowing down their recruitment processes due to subdued economic outlooks and rising wage costs. This cautious stance is particularly evident in sectors like legal and professional services, where hiring remains subdued despite the availability of job seekers.

So… what now?

Yes, the volume of roles is down. No, it is not the worst market we have seen. There are still good jobs out there, but you need a targeted approach.

Here is what we are telling our candidates:

• Don’t spray and pray. A focused application strategy works better than firing off applications to every job going.
• Work with a specialist recruiter who knows your niche (hello!).
• Be decisive. If you are offered something good, take it. Gone are the days of managing multiple offers.

And while other recruiters keep shouting “it’s picking up!” only to backtrack a few weeks later, we’ll be straight with you – it is slow, but steady. And that might actually be a good thing. How many more “uncertainties” can come along after all?

We have been here before (and we will be here again).

May 2025

In the legal recruitment world, where precision and trust are everything, the rise of AI and automation has stirred up a fundamental question: Are we enhancing our services with technology, or are we quietly replacing the very human elements that made recruitment a relationship-driven business in the first place?

At Fry & Brown, we have been in the game long enough to remember when LinkedIn first launched. Back then, together with our colleagues, we were quietly panicking that recruiters might become obsolete. But here we are, decades later, still thriving. Why? Because recruitment, especially in highly skilled and technical areas such as the legal and financial services sectors, is all about people. It is about understanding individual career ambitions, cultural fits, team dynamics, and so much more that algorithms cannot yet grasp.

That said, we are not technophobes. Quite the opposite. As a smaller, boutique firm, we rely heavily on technology to level the playing field with larger competitors. We use cutting-edge applicant tracking systems, AI-powered sourcing tools, and automated communications platforms to work smarter and faster. Technology helps us track down skilled lawyers more efficiently, deliver polished profiles, and manage logistics with ease. People often comment that we seem to have a bigger presence than the small firm that we are. We are constantly trialling new technology, assessing our competitors and joining groups and forums to keep retain the edge in this space. In recruitment, if you’re not on top of AI by now, you’re falling behind and we make sure that we’re not lagging on innovation which will enable us to stay at the top of our game and ahead of the competition.

But here is the thing: we are very selective about how we use technology.

AI can scan CVs, assess keywords, and send automated follow-ups, but it can’t understand when an applicant is hesitating for family reasons or when a client has subtle but crucial preferences for their next hire. A video CV might look sleek, but it won’t replace the nuance of a conversation where a lawyer opens up about what’s really important in their next role.

Our clients, whether they are large banks and insurance companies or boutique financiers, expect more from us. They want recruiters who really know the market, where to find the talent, and their business inside out. They come to us expecting that we’ve been quietly earmarking candidates for them long before the job spec lands. That is just not something that AI can replicate.

What is more, the overuse of technology can backfire. Imagine a lawyer receiving an automated rejection after an interview – no context and no feedback. Or worse, getting passed between multiple recruiters and systems, each dealing with one technical element of the process, with no context, consistency or explanation. The trust erodes. Relationships break down. And that lawyer won’t want to work to with the financial institution or agency again.

Compare that with a recruiter who has built a relationship with that person over years, who knows their motivations, who can have honest conversations at the offer stage – about money, flexibility, or timing – and who can guide both sides to a successful hire.

That is what Fry & Brown stands for. Yes, we have heavily invested in AI and the latest systems, but never at the cost of the personal touch. We built this company seven years ago specifically to break away from high-volume, transactional recruitment. We wanted to stay hands-on, to take every client meeting ourselves, to see the recruitment of a lawyer through to successful hire, and to never shy away from a phone call or difficult conversation.

AI isn’t the enemy for us, it’s a powerful tool. But like all tools, its value depends on how it’s used. At Fry & Brown we always use technology to enhance the human experience, not replace it.

Need help with your legal hiring? Call us to book a meeting. Or browse our latest insights here.

May 2025