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

Embarking on a legal career presents a pivotal choice between two primary paths: private practice lawyer and in-house counsel. Each offers distinct experiences, responsibilities, and career trajectories. Understanding these differences is crucial for lawyers at early stages in their careers in order to maximise your potential in your chosen route and to navigate your experience towards your career goals.

Training and Early Responsibilities

In traditional private practice, aspiring solicitors typically undergo a structured training contract comprising four ‘seats’ in distinct legal areas. This rotational approach provides exposure to various specialties, allowing trainees to identify their preferred niche. During this period, junior lawyers often operate under close supervision, focusing on specific tasks within their assigned departments.

Conversely, in-house legal teams may offer a more integrated training experience. Whilst some companies and financial services organisations still offer traditional seats, many provide a more varied training contract where you gain mixed experience whilst learning more about the industry and business that the legal team supports. Both options are frequently supported by a seat (often litigation) in a law firm to satisfy the law society requirements which also offers understanding of the relationships between law firms respond to their clients. A more recent and very common way to qualification is the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) route whereby you gain 2 years qualifying work experience and sit 2 rounds of exams.

Newly qualified lawyers in-house often handle a broader spectrum of legal issues simultaneously, reflecting the diverse needs of the business. This environment can accelerate responsibility, as in-house counsel are required to address immediate legal concerns across multiple domains. 

NQ solicitors in private practice are likely to get more detailed technical experience and will be working closely with absolute experts in their field.

Scope of Work

Whilst some law firms and individual teams are sector focussed, generally private practice lawyers serve a diverse clientele, each with unique legal challenges. This diversity allows for specialisation in specific legal fields, enabling lawyers to become subject-matter experts. However, this focus may limit exposure to the broader business implications of legal decisions. You may be working on a small part of a deal and not get to see the final outcome or be working on a case that has already progressed to litigation without the understanding of how this could be avoided.

In contrast, in-house lawyers are dedicated to a single client: their employer. This role demands versatility, as they must navigate various legal matters, from regulatory compliance to contract negotiations. In-house lawyers often gain a deeper understanding of their organisation’s strategic objectives, as they work across multiple legal areas rather than specialising in just one. This broader exposure enhances their ability to provide tailored legal advice that aligns with the business’s commercial goals.

Client Interaction and Communication

Private practice lawyers interact primarily with external clients, necessitating formal communication and a strong emphasis on client relationship management. Success in this arena often hinges on attracting and retaining clients, alongside delivering precise legal solutions.

In-house counsel, embedded within the organisation, engage directly with internal stakeholders across all levels. This proximity facilitates immediate collaboration but also requires the ability to translate complex legal concepts into practical business language. Effective in-house lawyers are adept at aligning legal strategies with the company’s commercial objectives and they must be able to build relationships from the bottom right up to the CEO.

Work Environment and Culture

Private practice environments are often high-pressure settings with demanding workloads. The emphasis on billable hours can lead to extended working periods, impacting work-life balance. Recent reports highlight that junior lawyers in prestigious firms may face over 70-hour workweeks, contributing to stress and potential burnout.  Working on larger deals in private practice often involves meetings with clients across multiple jurisdictions and unsociable hours and you can often be called upon at short notice and have holidays and weekends interrupted.

In-house roles may offer more predictable schedules and a collaborative atmosphere. While deadlines and high-stakes projects are inherent, alignment with core business hours can provide a more balanced lifestyle. However, the expectation remains to address urgent matters promptly, and this reflects the dynamic nature of business operations.

Career Progression

Typically, private practice follows a hierarchical trajectory, from associate to partner, with clear milestones. Advancement is often linked to billable hours, client acquisition, and specialisation. However, the traditional law firm model has been evolving with technological advancements, potentially affecting the structure of some law firms, having a knock on effect on culture.

In-house career paths can be less defined, sometimes resembling a ‘flat’ organisational structure. Progression may depend on the organisation’s size and the availability of senior roles – often seen as dead man’s shoes. Nonetheless, in-house lawyers often gain valuable business acumen and may transition into executive positions beyond the legal department. For those not set on always operating as a lawyer, options often come up in compliance and company secretarial departments where the legal background continues to be utilised. Career progression in-house can be more about expanding your skill set than an actual step up.

Performance Metrics and Flexibility

Private practice lawyers are frequently evaluated based on billable hours and revenue generation, fostering a competitive environment with stringent targets. This focus can influence work patterns and personal time management.

In-house counsel are typically assessed on their ability to manage legal risks, contribute to business strategy, and support various departments effectively. This role often allows for greater flexibility in work arrangements, aligning with the organisation’s policies and culture.

Reward

Remuneration in private practice can be considerably more than that of an equivalently experienced lawyer in-house. It will vary depending on the size and coverage of the firm with US firms offering more than double some other City firms. The salary gaps are particularly apparent at the NQ level and at the very senior end.  With the recent war for early talent in recent years, some have said that private practice salaries have become unsustainable and there has been a knock-on effect in-house, with employers having to pay more for their junior lawyers.

In-house there has been some compression in salary ranges between junior and senior lawyers, with the more senior lawyers often receiving little more than inflationary rises. Without the option of aspiring to partnership, and limited promotional prospects, organisations find it hard to justify paying a 20 year qualified lawyer significantly more for work that a 6-8 year qualified lawyer may be able to do. Many lawyers with desirable skillsets find they must move on to get any kind of significant rise without promotion.

In-house salaries and bonuses can vary so much depending on the business you join. Commerce and retail will pay less than insurance, but banking pays more than insurance. Fintechs, private equity, hedge funds and other potentially high-risk companies can offer either very high base salaries with limited bonus and benefits, or very low ones with high bonuses and equity. Some financial institutions can offer salaries as high as private practice salaries, but they will expect private practice hours and may not offer the change of culture.

Choosing between private practice and in-house roles involves careful consideration of one’s career aspirations, preferred work environment, and desired work-life balance. Private practice may appeal to those seeking specialisation and a structured advancement path, while in-house positions offer a broader scope of work with direct business involvement. Both paths present unique challenges and rewards.

If you’re thinking of moving in-house and have an interest in financial services, feel free to contact us here at Fry & Brown for more personalised guidance.

Apr 2025

Finding yourself with multiple job offers is an exciting yet challenging position to be in. While having options is a positive, deciding which opportunity is right for you can feel overwhelming. Do you follow the money, prioritise work-life balance, or focus on long-term career growth?

At Fry & Brown, we have helped countless lawyers and financial services professionals navigate this decision. The key is to think beyond the immediate benefits and consider what each role offers for your future success.

1. Look Beyond Salary, Think Long-Term

A competitive salary is always appealing, but it shouldn’t be the sole deciding factor. We’re all aware that law firms are raising salaries to attract top talent, but it is crucial to look at the bigger picture too. A&O Shearman, Reed Smith, Ashurst, Quinn Emanuel, Gibson Dunn, and Paul Weiss have all recently increased newly qualified lawyer salaries, raising to £180,000 in US firms in response to mounting pressure to retain talent and stay ahead of competitors. This recent trend highlights how firms are using pay as a key incentive – but career progression, firm culture, and long-term opportunities often play a bigger role in sustained professional success. As well as the obvious work-life balance question, the following points should also be considered:
• Will this role open doors to better opportunities down the line?
• Does the company invest in training and development?
• Are there clear promotion pathways, or could you hit a ceiling?
If an offer comes with a slightly lower salary but offers structured career growth and leadership potential, it could be the better investment in your future.

2. Assess the Firm’s Culture and Vision

By the time you receive an offer, you will have gained some insight into the company’s culture, leadership, and work environment. But dig deeper:
• Is the firm growing or restructuring?
• Do they have a strong reputation in the legal/financial services market?
• How stable are their client base and revenue streams?
Law firms and financial services organisations are increasingly prioritising social mobility and diversity, implementing new initiatives to create alternative career paths for aspiring legal professionals. For example, Simmons & Simmons has recently set a 20% social mobility target for its lawyers, trainees, and apprentices, demonstrating a shift toward greater inclusivity in the profession.
Working for a respected, forward-thinking employer will add credibility to your CV and provide a strong foundation for future career moves.

3. Career Development & Internal Mobility

A great job today is not necessarily a great job in five years. Consider the bigger picture:
• Does the company support lateral moves across departments?
• Are they committed to developing talent from within?
• Will you have access to mentors, leadership programmes, or secondments?
The Law Society offers career clinics and development programmes, which can help you assess whether a prospective employer truly invests in their employees.
The most successful professionals are those who position themselves ahead of industry trends. Lawyers who specialised in GDPR early on gained a huge career advantage when demand for data privacy expertise skyrocketed.

4. Consider Alternative Career Paths

The legal profession offers diverse pathways. Some firms provide opportunities to transition into different practice areas or take on roles that combine legal expertise with business strategy.
• Do they offer secondments to in-house teams or international offices?
• Do they encourage you to apply for other roles internally to grow your skillset?
• Do they allow you to develop business relationships?
• Can you move into the business, an advisory role, regulatory compliance, or risk management?
• Do they support additional qualifications or cross-training?

5. Weight Non-Salary Perks

Beyond salary, look at what else the firm offers:
• What kind of bonus can you expect?
• What is the holiday and working hours like?
• Does the firm allow flexible or remote working?
• Well-being initiatives – Are there mental health or diversity programmes?
• Professional development – Will they fund further qualifications?
A higher salary may not be worth it if it comes with long hours, high stress, and limited flexibility.

6. Look at Future Market Trends

The legal and financial sectors are constantly evolving. Before making your decision, consider which role positions you best for the future:
• Are there emerging practice areas you could specialise in? (eg. ESG law, regulatory risk, or fintech)
• Is the firm investing in AI, digital transformation, or compliance technology?
• Are new regulations (like Basel III or sustainability disclosures) creating demand for legal experts?
If an offer aligns with a high-growth area of law, it could give you a competitive edge in the years ahead.

Final Thoughts: Making the Right Choice

Deciding between job offers requires a holistic approach. Beyond the immediate benefits, consider how each opportunity aligns with your long-term career objectives and personal values.
Give some weight to your gut feeling. If you have reservations ask for an extra meeting, or to speak to someone in the team.

Still unsure? Talk it through with a trusted mentor or recruitment consultant. At Fry & Brown, we work closely with lawyers and financial services professionals to help them make the right career moves, not just for today, but for long-term success.

Get expert career advice: https://www.fryandbrown.com/

Mar 2025

I’m excited to share that I’m back at work after taking three months off for health reasons.

The past year has been a whirlwind for me. Repeated unexpected challenges threw my life off course. I am very much a part of the overly squeezed sandwich generation; responsibility for teenage children, aging parents and a challenging career are competing for my time on a continually stretched to do list.

I then personally had a number of health issues in the second half of last year which was effectively the last straw, and led to me needing to take some time off work.

This was a hard decision to make and I hadn’t even thought that taking time away from Fry & Brown would be possible. In my legal recruitment career spanning over 20 years, I’ve never needed or really wanted to take time out before so neither did it feel comfortable.  As we are a boutique recruitment firm, centered around just 2 directors, Tracy Brown and myself; we are very much the two faces of the business.  The pull of ongoing professional responsibilities felt strong and facing sudden health issues wasn’t easy, in fact it was daunting! I found myself needing to prioritise personal well-being and moving away from work as it was necessary. So, with Tracy’s full support, I decided to step back from the business for 3 months.

During my time off, I had the space to focus on my health, and reassess and prioritise the most important things in life.  It has given me the chance to reflect on the importance of work-life balance and self-care, and I’m more committed than ever to encouraging a healthy, supportive work environment for everyone I partner with.  I have realised that you never know what is round the corner, and that good health is by far the most important thing that can never be taken for granted.  It is also crucial for professional success and fulfilment; everything else rests upon it.

I am now more grateful than ever for key relationships both in my professional and personal life.  One of the most important of these is my partnership with Tracy Brown.  When we founded Fry & Brown seven years ago, we wanted to build on our complementary strengths as specialist legal recruiters to the financial services sector and to provide a personal approach that can only come from a smaller firm.  I’m confident that we have succeeded in that and I’m more enthused than ever to continue building our successful but small business in 2025.  I’m incredibly grateful to Tracy for holding the fort and keeping the Fry & Brown flag flying.

This time away has given me a fresh perspective and renewed energy, and I’m now eager to dive back into helping financial services companies find the best talent and supporting lawyers in their career journeys.

I’d love to hear from you! Please get in touch with any tips you have for maintaining a healthy work-life balance or share your own experiences with taking time off for health reasons.

I’m currently catching up with lots of our clients, so please send me a message if you would like to arrange a coffee or call to discuss attracting and retaining talent in your team, or your own career path.

Feb 2025

The legal profession has long been associated with high stress, long hours, and intense pressure, particularly for those working in financial services. From the early stages of securing a training contract to climbing the career ladder in private practice or transitioning in-house, lawyers often face challenges that can take a toll on their mental health. In this article, we explore how financial services lawyers can prioritise their well-being while navigating the demands of their careers.

The Early Years. Setting the Foundation for Balance

Breaking into the legal profession is notoriously difficult. Even the brightest graduates face fierce competition for training contracts, and once secured, the real work begins. Early career lawyers often find themselves handling laborious, repetitive tasks, working long hours to meet deadlines, and under immense pressure to “put in the face time” to demonstrate their commitment.

Tips for maintaining mental health during the early years:

1. Communicate with loved ones: Make sure friends and family understand what you are signing up to and the demands that are likely to be put upon you. If they understand the commitment required to meet your goals you can avoid additional pressure from those closest to you.
2. Seek mentorship: Having a trusted mentor who understands the pressures of the profession can provide guidance and support during challenging times.
3. Consider other qualification routes: A law firm training contract is no longer the only way to qualify and other routes such as the SQE and qualifying in-house are now more popular and just as highly regarded. Whether you go down the private practice or in-house route, research the company you are joining carefully so that you can choose the culture you are joining.

The Pressure of Progression. Senior Lawyers and Workload Expectations

As lawyers progress in their careers, the demands only increase. Senior lawyers often face intense pressure to hit billable hour targets, deliver exceptional results, and position themselves for partnership. The “always-on” culture can lead to burnout if not carefully managed.

Strategies for sustaining mental health as a senior lawyer:

1. Set boundaries early: While it may feel daunting, establish clear boundaries around your working hours and personal time. Communicate these to your colleagues and supervisors where possible.
2. Delegate effectively: Recognise that you can’t do it all. Empower junior colleagues by delegating tasks that help them grow while reducing your own workload.
3. Practice self-care: Prioritise activities that rejuvenate you, whether it’s exercise, meditation, or simply taking regular breaks during the day.
4. Prioritise your social life: A common pitfall for lawyers is allowing work to consume their lives when it isn’t necessary, just to impress. Schedule regular catch-ups with friends and family to maintain a sense of normalcy and connection.
5. Reassess your goals: Not every lawyer aspires to partnership. Consider alternative career paths, such as moving in-house, that may align better with your personal and professional aspirations.

Moving In-House. A Different Kind of Pressure

For many lawyers, moving in-house is seen as a way to escape the relentless demands of private practice. While in-house roles can offer a better work-life balance, they are not without their own challenges. In-house legal teams often face pressure from the business, which in turn is under pressure from clients. Legal teams are sometimes unfairly perceived as “business blockers,” adding another layer of stress.
Tips for maintaining balance in-house:

1. Build strong relationships with the business: Fostering mutual understanding and collaboration can help reduce friction and improve perceptions of the legal team.
2. Advocate for your team: If you’re in a leadership role, ensure your team members have manageable workloads and access to mental health resources.
3. Stay connected to your purpose: Remember why you chose to move in-house. Reflect on the opportunities to work more strategically and make a meaningful impact.

How Heads of Legal Can Support Their Teams

Leaders in legal departments have a crucial role in ensuring their teams remain mentally healthy. A proactive approach to well-being can make all the difference.
For further mental health resources specifically tailored to the legal profession, visit LawCare, a charity dedicated to promoting well-being and mental health support for lawyers.
Steps for heads of legal to support mental health:

1. Promote open dialogue: Encourage team members to share concerns without fear of judgment or repercussions. Publicise internal resources and policies.
2. Offer flexibility: Allowing flexible working arrangements can help team members manage personal and professional responsibilities more effectively.
3. Leverage external resources: Partner with mental health professionals or provide access to Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs) to offer additional support.

Exploring Alternative Paths

Prioritising mental health in a demanding profession like law requires intentional effort, but it is entirely achievable. Whether you’re a junior lawyer navigating the early years, a senior lawyer striving for balance, or a head of legal supporting a team, the key is to set boundaries, maintain a support network, and explore career options that align with your personal goals.
The traditional route to partnership in private practice isn’t the only option for lawyers. Alternative qualification pathways, in-house legal roles, moves into support roles other departments or into the business all offer opportunities to build fulfilling careers and can offer a reduced level of pressure.
Fry & Brown specialises in helping lawyers explore in-house pathways, offering roles across the financial services sector that align with individual needs and goals. You can read more about how we support career transitions here. If you’re considering a move to improve your work-life balance, visit our current vacancies to explore opportunities that could work for you.

Looking for new opportunities in the financial services legal sector? Visit Fry & Brown for the latest roles tailored to your skills and aspirations.

Jan 25