Category: Hiring Advice

Most firms do not choose an agency. They inherit one.

HR used them for a paralegal hire two years ago. A partner replied to a LinkedIn message on a Tuesday. A recruiter phoned with a name that sounded interesting. The brief goes out on that basis, and a fortnight later a shortlist lands for a Conflicts Analyst role that is full of people who have spent five years doing transaction monitoring at a bank.

I see this often enough that it has stopped surprising me. The candidates are not bad. They are the wrong candidates. Financial services compliance and law firm risk and compliance share a word and very little else, and a generalist agency does not find that out until the hiring manager tells them.

That is the real cost. Not the fee. The three weeks you lose, the interview slots you burn, and the one candidate who was right for the role and has since accepted an offer somewhere else.

Five questions to ask before you instruct anyone. They work as well on us as on anyone else.

Why most compliance recruitment agencies get law firm briefs wrong

Compliance is a big word. It covers banks, asset managers, fintechs, insurers, listed companies and law firms, and the recruitment market has grown up around the biggest of those, which is financial services. That is where the volume is, so that is where most compliance recruitment agencies have built their databases.

A law firm brief then arrives and gets processed through the same machine. Same search terms, same candidate pool, same salary assumptions. The output looks like a compliance shortlist. It is not a law firm compliance shortlist.

The questions below are designed to find that out before the shortlist arrives rather than after.

1. What proportion of your placements are legal risk and compliance?

Not “do you cover it”. Every agency will say yes to that. Ask for the split.

A firm that places mostly into financial services has a database built for that market. The salary expectations are different. The vocabulary is different. A Compliance Manager in a bank spends their week on SMCR and regulatory reporting. A Compliance Manager in a law firm spends it on the SRA Standards and Regulations, client due diligence under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017, and whether the conflicts team has cleared a matter before the partner has started work on it.

Those are different jobs. The people who are good at one are not automatically good at the other, and the ones who want to move between them are a small minority.

If the agency cannot give you a number, that is the answer. Our number is simple. We only recruit for law firms. There is no other side of the desk.

2. Whose salary data are you quoting?

Ask where the figure came from.

A generalist quotes job adverts back at you. Adverts are what firms hoped to pay, not what they paid. They also skew upwards, because the roles that get advertised widely are the ones that were hard to fill at the first number.

A specialist owns data. Ours comes from our annual survey plus our own placement records, and we publish the bands openly, role by role, in the salary guide. You can check our figures before you pick up the phone, and I would encourage you to check anyone else’s the same way.

The gap this catches is not small. Our published bands put a Head of Compliance at £110,500 to £184,000 in regional UK, and £138,000 to £230,000 in London — the same job title, a materially different number. An agency working from a financial services dataset will quote you something else entirely, and you will either overpay for the hire or lose the candidate at offer stage.

3. Who have you placed at my tier of firm this year?

This year. Not ever.

Magic Circle, US, national and regional firms hire differently and pay differently. A US firm in London tends to expect more office presence. A regional firm may have one person covering compliance, conflicts and data protection between them, so breadth matters more than depth. A large City firm runs a business acceptance function with specialists in each lane, and wants someone who fits one lane well.

An agency that has placed at your tier recently knows the interview format, the sign-off chain and what the last few offers at your level looked like. An agency that has not is guessing, and you are paying for the guess.

Ask for specifics. Role, tier, month. They will not give you names and they should not. The pattern is what you are after. If you want a sense of what we are working on now, the live roles are on the jobs page.

4. Where does conflicts sit within business acceptance?

Ask them to talk you through it.

Several compliance recruitment firms treat conflicts and business acceptance as two separate jobs, or as the same job with two titles. Neither is right.

Conflicts sits inside business acceptance. It is the narrower part of it: running conflict searches, analysing the results, and escalating where the picture is unclear. Business acceptance covers a lot more ground. Client due diligence, source of funds, sanctions screening, engagement terms and the commercial question of whether the firm wants the matter at all.

Some firms run the whole thing as one team. Others carve conflicts out as its own seat. The candidate pools overlap, but somebody who has only ever run conflict searches has not done the wider role, and somebody who has run a full business acceptance function may have spent very little time on search analysis.

If an agency does not know where that line sits, they will shortlist as though it is not there. You will get a strong AML analyst for a conflicts seat and spend the first three months wondering why the search analysis is not up to standard.

5. What does your shortlist actually look like?

A shortlist should be short.

A handful of people who have been interviewed properly, with a note on why each one is on the list and where the risk sits with each. Not a dozen CVs forwarded from a job board with the agency’s logo on top.

A specialist can tell you why a candidate is worth your time, what they are weaker on, and what would make them turn the role down. A generalist sends volume and leaves you to work it out.

That is the part worth paying for. The screening either happens before the CVs reach you, or it happens in your interview slots.

What to do next

If you have a role live now, brief us. Tell us the tier, the team and the timeline and we will tell you what the market looks like for that role before you commit to anything. There is more on how we work on the recruitment page.

If you would rather see the data first, the salary guide is open. Read it, then hold it up against whatever another agency quotes you.

Either way, ask the five questions of everyone, including us. Most agencies have not been asked them before. You learn a lot from the length of the pause.

Frequently asked questions

How do I choose a legal risk and compliance recruitment agency?

Ask what proportion of their placements are in law firm risk and compliance rather than financial services, where their salary data comes from, who they have placed at your tier of firm this year, whether they can explain where conflicts sits within business acceptance, and what their shortlist actually looks like.

What is the difference between a compliance recruitment agency and a legal risk and compliance specialist?

Most compliance recruitment agencies are built around financial services, where the volume is. A legal risk and compliance specialist recruits only for law firms, where the roles, salaries and regulatory framework are different.

Whose salary data should a compliance recruitment agency be using?

Their own. A specialist agency owns survey and placement data and publishes it openly by role. A generalist quotes job adverts, which reflect what firms hoped to pay rather than what they paid.

What is the difference between conflicts and business acceptance?

Conflicts sits within business acceptance. It covers running conflict searches, analysing the results, and escalating where the picture is unclear. Business acceptance is wider, taking in client due diligence, source of funds, sanctions screening, engagement terms and whether the firm wants the matter at all. Some firms run them as one team, others carve conflicts out as its own seat.

What should a legal risk and compliance shortlist look like?

Short. A handful of people who have been properly interviewed, each with a note on why they are on the list and where the risk sits. If a shortlist arrives as a stack of forwarded CVs, the screening has not happened yet and it will happen in your interview slots instead.

There’s been a lot written about the FCA taking over AML supervision from the SRA, and most of it ends in the same place.

Review your governance. Map your AML responsibilities. Make sure you can evidence that your controls work, not just that you have a policy saying they should.

That’s sound advice.

But I’ve spent ten years placing risk and compliance professionals into UK law firms, and when I look at this change, I don’t just see a regulatory problem. I see a people problem.

Some roles are going to change. A few responsibilities will become proper jobs where they’re currently bolted onto someone else’s role. And if several thousand firms reach the same conclusion at roughly the same time, the hiring market gets tight very quickly.

That’s the part of this change I think firms need to start thinking about now.

What we know

• The FCA will become the Single Professional Services Supervisor for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing.
• The change replaces the current model of professional body supervisors, including the SRA.
• Around 6,500 SRA-regulated firms sit within the scope of the Money Laundering Regulations.
• The FCA’s AML-supervised population is expected to increase from roughly 17,000 firms to more than 60,000.
• HM Treasury published its response to the powers consultation in June 2026; the enabling clauses sit in a Bill introduced in May.

What isn’t decided yet

• There is no confirmed transfer date.
• Implementation still requires the relevant legislation, funding and a transition plan.
• The exact treatment of MLRO and MLCO roles, including any FCA approval requirements, has not been decided.
• The detail of how existing SRA AML registrations will transfer is not yet finalised.

The timeline most coverage gets wrong

This is not happening next year.

Implementation needs primary legislation to pass, funding to be confirmed and a transition plan to be agreed. Commencement is tied to the availability of parliamentary time.

The current expectation is that legislation is unlikely to complete before late 2026, with the transfer not expected to start before 2028 and then being phased over the following two to three years. A lot of people in the sector are working to a 2029 assumption.

So there is time.

But I think firms can make two mistakes here. Panic and spend money before they need to; or do nothing because the change feels years away.

The second is the bigger risk.

The danger isn’t that firms have three years to prepare. It’s that thousands of firms think they have three years to prepare, then all start hiring for the same skills at roughly the same time.

That’s when a manageable hiring problem becomes a difficult one.

You’ll have two regulators, not one

The reform doesn’t consolidate regulation for law firms. It splits it.

The FCA takes AML and CTF. The SRA keeps conduct, client money, practising certificates and everything else. Firms within scope of the Money Laundering Regulations will therefore be dealing with both.

That matters from a people perspective.

Somebody in your firm has to own the relationship with the FCA. They will need to field information requests, respond to thematic work and understand what a more data-led supervisory relationship looks like.

Nobody in a law firm risk team has done that exact job before, because it hasn’t existed.

The guidance around mapping responsibilities across the MLRO, MLCO, COLP and COFA is therefore more than a governance exercise. It’s job design.

If you map the responsibilities properly, you may find that your existing job descriptions don’t actually describe the function you will need.

From guidance-led to evidence-led

The FCA’s supervisory approach is more risk-based, data-led and evidence-focused.

That means firms are likely to need more capability around proactive data provision, documented decision-making and evidence that controls have actually operated over time.

Someone has to produce the management information. Someone has to test whether controls are working. Someone has to maintain an audit trail that stands up when a supervisor used to looking at banks and insurers comes and looks at you.

In a lot of mid-market firms, those things aren’t defined roles. They’re things a stretched Head of Risk picks up alongside everything else.

That’s a headcount gap, not a policy gap.

What changes role by role

AML Analyst

Client due diligence, source of funds and source of wealth work becomes more than a task that closes a file. The evidence needs to stand up later.

The quality bar is likely to rise, and the changes to the Money Laundering Regulations in June 2026 put more emphasis on the firm’s own risk assessment. That means you need AML analysts who can reason and make judgements, not just complete a checklist.

AML Manager

This is the layer I think firms should pay particular attention to.

Control testing, quality assurance and management information all need an owner. In some firms that capability exists already; in others it is spread across several people.

If I had to pick the role most likely to become harder to hire for, this would be near the top of my list.

MLRO

This is where things get particularly interesting.

One of the biggest open questions is whether MLRO and MLCO roles in law firms will require FCA approval, or be treated as something closer to a senior management function. That hasn’t been decided.

If the answer goes that way, the hiring implications are significant. Approval before appointment could add time to hiring processes. Fit and proper requirements could increase the scrutiny on candidates. And greater personal exposure could change the conversation candidates have about taking the role in the first place.

There’s another question firms need to ask themselves now: is the MLRO actually a standalone role, or is it a responsibility bolted onto a partner, COLP or someone with an already full-time job?

From what I see, only around 20% are standalone. The rest sit with a partner alongside a full-time job.

Personal liability has been part of that conversation for years. Senior financial crime candidates are often reluctant to take the title, because the extra risk and responsibility rarely comes with anything that makes it worth taking on. I’ve seen a Director of Risk on £150,000 offered £160,000 to pick up MLRO. They said no and told the firm to leave it where it was.

Where the MLRO sits with a managing partner earning several times that, the personal exposure doesn’t land the same way. That’s part of why the arrangement has held for so long.

COLP and COFA

These responsibilities stay with the SRA, but they will sit alongside an FCA-supervised AML function. The boundary between those responsibilities needs to be clear and documented.

Someone will also need to own the interface between the two regulatory environments. That is a new competency and there isn’t an established pool of people who have already done exactly that job.

Business Acceptance and Conflicts

Client and matter risk assessment is central to the AML framework, and business acceptance has already been moving from an administrative function towards a genuine risk function.

I think this change accelerates that trend.

If the process becomes more important to demonstrating that the firm’s controls work, it becomes harder to justify staffing it at a purely administrative level. The same applies to conflicts.

I’m not seeing that in pay yet. Business acceptance salaries have been climbing steadily, but that’s the wider market rather than anything to do with the FCA. Most firms haven’t changed what they pay, or the profile of person they’re hiring, because most firms haven’t started acting on this at all.

That’s the bit I’d watch. When it does land, I’d expect a scramble for the same people.

Risk Lawyer and Head of Risk

Regulatory relationship management becomes a more valuable skill.

Managing the SRA is a known quantity for established law firm risk teams. Managing the SRA while building a relationship with the FCA is different.

That experience will become increasingly valuable, particularly at senior level, and it changes what a risk lawyer career looks like from here.

Risk and Compliance Manager and Director of Risk

The senior team will have greater accountability for demonstrating that the AML programme actually works.

This is also where financial services experience becomes more interesting. Someone who has spent years working inside an FCA-supervised environment suddenly has experience that is much more directly relevant to the firm’s future supervisory relationship.

What this means for the hiring market

The FCA change could redefine what ‘relevant experience’ means

I’ve said before that firms can get too hung up on direct law firm experience.

In practice we place almost nobody from financial services into a law firm. It isn’t that the candidates are weak. It’s that the answer is usually a hard no before anyone has read the CV properly. Financial services AML gets treated as too narrow to transfer.

Where firms have flexed is real estate. We’ve placed several people from that background into law firm risk and compliance teams and they’ve picked it up quickly and done well. The objection was the same one, and it didn’t hold.

This reform makes the financial services argument harder to wave away. If your supervisor is the FCA, people who have spent their careers being supervised by the FCA start to look relevant in a way they didn’t before.

That doesn’t mean law firm experience stops mattering. There are obvious differences between the sectors. But ‘must have law firm experience’ becomes a filter firms need to justify rather than assume, and the ones who keep it will be fishing in a much smaller pond.

When does the hiring pressure actually start?

This is the question I’m most interested in.

It isn’t in client briefs yet. Plenty of hiring managers raise it in conversation, but none of them have changed what they are actually recruiting for.

There are two reasons for that. There’s still no clarity on exactly what is happening or when. And BAU teams are stretched, so firms are hiring for the pressure they have now rather than the supervisor they will have later. In practice that means law firm experience, quickly.

When legislation progresses and firms have greater clarity, several thousand businesses could start looking for the same fairly small group of people who can evidence AML controls, manage assurance and operate confidently in a more data-led supervisory environment.

That’s when I would expect the market to move.

And I’d expect the manager, MLRO and assurance end of the market to move first because those are the roles with the most obvious capability gap.

What could happen to salaries?

The simple answer is supply and demand.

Our salary benchmarks already show a meaningful spread across the legal risk and compliance market. The current guide puts Compliance Manager roles at £60,000–£101,000 in London and £48,000–£81,000 across regional UK; Senior Compliance Manager roles at £72,500–£117,000 in London and £57,500–£93,500 regionally. Risk and senior leadership roles sit higher again.

I wouldn’t try to predict exactly where salaries will land after the transfer. But if several thousand firms start competing for a small group of people with AML management, assurance and supervisory experience, I would expect those roles to move first.

That’s another reason to think about the structure of the team before the market gets busy, rather than trying to react to it afterwards.

What I’d do with the runway

I’m not saying firms need to start hiring an entire new AML team tomorrow.

I’d do four things instead.

1. Work out who owns the FCA relationship. Not because the transfer is imminent, but because it is better to know now than discover the gap during implementation.
2. Build the assurance layer ahead of need. An AML manager or control-testing role is useful under the current SRA model too, so this isn’t a hire that only makes sense if the timetable stays on track.
3. Be honest about the MLRO arrangement. If it’s a bolt-on to someone’s day job, think about whether that remains sensible as the supervisory environment changes.
4. Don’t rebuild your AML programme unnecessarily. The supervisory transfer changes who supervises compliance and how; it doesn’t mean a good existing programme suddenly becomes a bad one.

If I were prioritising one hire out of all of this, it would be the assurance layer.

I’d start looking in the next twelve months rather than the next three years.

It’s the role with the smallest candidate pool and potentially the longest lead time. More importantly, it’s useful whether the legislation lands exactly when expected or takes longer.

The firms that prepare well won’t necessarily have the biggest teams

They’ll be the firms that work out which responsibilities need to become proper jobs before they become regulatory problems.

That’s the bit I think is easy to miss in all the coverage of the FCA takeover.

This isn’t just a change to who supervises AML. It’s potentially a change to how law firms structure, recruit and value their risk and compliance teams. You can see how those roles connect in our legal risk and compliance career pathways.

And if you’re waiting until the transfer is imminent to work that out, you may find everyone else is looking for the same people at the same time.

We work exclusively in legal risk and compliance recruitment for UK law firms. If you’re working out what your risk function needs to look like on the other side of this, give me a shout.

Frequently asked questions

When will the FCA take over AML supervision from the SRA?

There is no confirmed date. The transfer requires primary legislation, funding and an agreed transition plan, with commencement dependent on parliamentary time. The current expectation is that the transfer will not begin before 2028 and will then be phased over the following two to three years. Much of the sector is working to a 2029 assumption.

Will law firms be regulated by both the FCA and the SRA?

Yes. The FCA will take AML and counter-terrorist financing supervision. The SRA will retain conduct, client money, practising certificates and its other existing responsibilities. Firms within scope of the Money Laundering Regulations will therefore answer to both.

Does this change the Money Laundering Regulations?

The supervisory transfer does not itself change the firm’s underlying obligations under the Money Laundering Regulations. What changes is who supervises compliance and the approach to supervision. The MLR changes made in June 2026 are a separate development.

Will MLROs need FCA approval?

Not decided. Whether MLRO and MLCO roles in law firms require FCA authorisation or are treated as senior management functions remains an open question. The final position will have a material impact on how firms structure and recruit for these roles.

Should we be hiring for this now?

Not urgently because the transfer is still several years away. There is, however, a case for building capability ahead of the change. AML management, control testing and assurance are useful under the current SRA model too, and hiring before the market tightens could give firms more choice.

What happens to our SRA AML registration?

Firms carrying out MLR-regulated activity will need to register with the FCA. The detail of how existing approvals will be recognised or transferred is not yet finalised. Treasury has said it wants to minimise duplication.

We speak to Compliance professionals every day. Some are rising quickly. Others are stuck, even though they’re doing good work.

The difference often comes down to a few key behaviours.

With hiring managers placing more value on commercial thinking, stakeholder influence and adaptability, the people who stand out are those who do more than just keep up with the rules.

Here are four habits we see time and time again in candidates who get hired faster, promoted sooner, and trusted with more responsibility.

1. Prioritise Learning Over Short-Term Gain

We often tell candidates this: chasing salary alone can limit your long-term growth. The best careers are built on learning and adaptability.

What to focus on:

• Choose roles that stretch your skills, not just your salary
• Join teams that challenge how you think
• Be open to sideways moves if they broaden your experience
• Track what you’re learning, not just what you’re earning

This mindset always pays off. Fast learners become trusted leaders.

2. Build Trust Across the Business

Having the right knowledge is essential, but trust is what makes people listen. We hear it all the time from hiring managers, they want someone who understands the business, not just the rules.

What helps:

• Learn what other departments care about
• Offer support on cross-functional projects
• Follow through on what you say you’ll do
• Use clear, simple language when speaking to stakeholders

This is how Compliance becomes a partner to the business, not a tick-box function.

3. Choose Roles Strategically

The best candidates we work with are intentional. They think two or three steps ahead, not just about their next job title.

Ask yourself:

• Where could this role lead in a few years?
• Will I have the chance to learn from good people?
• Does the company value compliance at a senior level?
• Will I be supported to grow, not just left to it?

Career momentum is often about being in the right environment, not just the right job.

4. Be Intentional and Visible

You can’t rely on good work to speak for itself. We always remind people: the best performers make sure others know what they’re contributing.

Simple actions that help:

• Share what you’re working on in team sessions
• Volunteer for projects that give you wider exposure
• Document your wins and share results when relevant
• Book regular check-ins with your manager to talk through progress

People notice when you show up with confidence and clarity.

Skills That Help You Stand Out

The people who progress the fastest usually build strength in these areas:

• Understanding how regulations affect the wider business
• Communicating clearly with non-specialists
• Influencing decisions and gaining buy-in
• Leading projects from start to finish
• Thinking commercially, not just technically

These skills make Compliance professionals harder to replace and quicker to promote.

Mistakes That Can Hold You Back

We’ve seen talented people get stuck for years. Often, it’s because of patterns like these:

• Picking roles for job title or salary, not learning
• Avoiding projects outside your usual comfort zone
• Focusing only on tasks, not the outcomes
• Staying in roles with no feedback or development
• Keeping your head down when you should be sharing wins

Avoiding these habits gives you a real edge.

---

Final Thought

We’ve placed hundreds of professionals into risk and compliance roles. The ones who thrive are the ones who learn, build trust, think long term and make themselves visible.

It’s not about being loud. It’s about being intentional.

If you’re thinking about your next move, and want to find a role that supports your growth, we’d love to help.
Get in touch with the team at Uncover

On Episode 20 of The UNCOVER Pod, Alex Ktorides, the Head of Risk & Compliance at Bristows LLP, joined us to share some insights on how to navigate your career with confidence and clarity. He also shared his advice for more senior professionals who are leading Legal Risk & Compliance teams, specifically around building a positive culture that brings out the best in your colleagues. Read on to find out how you can become a better leader by influencing your team’s culture. 

What strategies have you found most effective for managing and motivating teams within the sector?

You learn on the job. Managing people is something that people take to quickly or otherwise. In terms of strategies to motivate a team, I have learned through trial and error that some things work better than others. They’re not particular to a law firm or to a risk function, they are more general things that apply to being a boss anywhere. Being a good boss is really important, and you can do that by showing that you’re consistent, being responsible and trying to give people the tools that they need to thrive. I tend to blame myself if something doesn’t go how I want. Next, I’ll ask the question ‘What is it that I didn’t do to help that person to do their best?’ 

Law firms or risk and compliance teams can be, if you’re not careful, quite isolating for people. You’re there to make sure that the guardrails are up, and that the firm can feel confident to do what it does really well. Make sure that people feel motivated and that they understand what’s going on in the business. It’s important that your team understand that they’re part of the firm – and a really important part at that. Share what’s going on, even just about the day’s work, so they feel aligned and not isolated. 

I think it’s important to show the impact of what they’re doing as well. So, for example, we go through some practical things like weekly stats in terms of file openings, conflict checks, etc. Sometimes you can highlight something that directly shows what we did leading to a pitch succeeding, or a piece of work getting done in a way that really pleased the client. Always link the value of what they’re doing. 

Be a good delegator as well. People want to move up, and for their skills to grow. Try to motivate people by letting them have more responsibility when they’re ready and when they want it. Recognise that people have different speeds too. Some people are very happy with the trajectory they’re on, others naturally want to push the boundaries. It’s up to you to tailor your approach and motivate people based on them as individuals.

How do you go about cultivating a culture of engagement and collaboration within your team?

Highlighting real-life examples of where we have made a direct impact on the wider business really improves engagement. I want to make sure that I share genuine examples with people so they feel engaged. What we do in the risk and compliance team is really pervasive throughout the whole business. That’s only getting stronger with the regulatory focus on culture and behaviours and things like that. Even though you’re just checking company structure charts in order to do a small part of the file opening, without that, a business will absolutely die, particularly these days with so much regulatory scrutiny. So I try and talk to them about why we are doing things, not just the specific task itself, but the bigger picture. 

Simple things like sharing the breaches register with the team or talking about bigger projects that they might be involved in are also important. I make sure that I talk to the team, see what they’re seeing, and seek out their opinions. I really do value the opinions of everyone on the team. People feel engaged when you show them that they’re valued by trying to incorporate some of their ideas. 

To hear more from Alex, tune into Episode 20 of The UNCOVER Pod here. 

Visibility is the key to getting ahead in the Legal Risk & Compliance sector. So how do you make sure people can see what you’re doing within your firm?  On Episode 7 of The Uncover Pod I was joined by Reshma Raja, who is General Counsel and Partner at RPC, to talk about ways you can gain visibility throughout your career. Here’s what she had to say:

“Most large, reputable organisations will have clear strategies and priorities. Putting your hand up to get involved with OGC, pro bono work or the firm’s environmental strategy will help people recognise you. If you’re in a risk and compliance function and you want to get involved, governance is a great area to target. There should be a very close connection between the Risk & Compliance team and the governance team to make sure that everything is done properly. If you don’t know what the firm is doing about those areas, then the chances are that they’re not anything. And if you’re in a firm that actually you’ve never heard of those acronyms, I think you should be speaking to your management and your board and saying, ‘Hang on a minute, what are we doing about OGC? It’s a very hot topic.’

If you’re a junior candidate who isn’t in a firm yet, you should be demonstrating resilience, enthusiasm and energy. Try to be outcome focussed. Legal Risk & Compliance is such a changing world, and it can be so varied. You could be handling big projects, urgent queries about conflict escalation, AML escalation or retainers with limited liability. Sometimes it can be really basic and you know the answer in your head, but sometimes there’s too much detail or there isn’t a wrong or right answer. You have to be adaptable. In terms of key attributes, the ability to process huge amounts of information, being commercial and having a genuine excitement for your area will really set you apart. 

 A large part of what we do in the Legal Risk & Compliance world is winning over clients. I think you have to work with an individual on five to six matters before they think you know what you’re talking about. It’s all about building a rapport and relationship with people. Building a personal brand is going to help you with that, because it builds trust without all those little interactions. We say it time and time again in the fee earning world; people aren’t necessarily buying the organisation or the firm, they’re buying the people behind that business. When they send queries through you’re not just working on that one retaining matter, you’re getting to know what’s bothering them, what’s keeping the GC up at night and what kind of mandates they deal with. You’re ultimately building a relationship with them to the point that they see you as their trusted legal adviser.”

To find out what else Reshma had to say, listen to Episode 7 of The UNCOVER Pod here.

A streamlined interview process is essential for maintaining candidate engagement. The Legal Risk & Compliance sector is highly competitive, so it’s crucial to eliminate any obstacles from your hiring process. If you don’t, you risk losing out to your competition. Smoothing out your process will also save your company time and resources by eliminating unnecessary steps between each hire. Read on for our tips on streamlining your hiring process. 

Assess Your Process

Before you start interviewing people, it’s important to consider whether your process is fit for purpose. Firms must determine what’s necessary for each role and avoid applying a one-size-fits-all approach. An overly protracted process will fatigue your candidates and potentially put them off. Reducing the time spent in the interview process is the first step to successfully securing your candidates. 

Your focus should be on interviewing with as much speed and efficiency as possible. For a senior leadership role a multistage in-person interview may be suitable, although for a junior analyst role a single conversation should be enough to assess a candidate’s suitability for the position. It’s vital that you adjust your interview process accordingly. 

Create a Flexible Panel

Try to be flexible with who conducts your interviews. Too many firms are following a rigid process and aren’t taking the time to question whether it’s vital for candidates to meet with a specific member of the team. Consider whether that person can be substituted with another member of your team during the interview. If your firm requires every new hire to meet with your Director of Risk for example before proceeding with an offer, you risk extending your hiring process to fit the schedule of just one person. That can result in candidates losing interest or accepting offers from other firms whose process was quicker. 

Utilise Technology

It’s crucial that firms utilise technology wherever possible in their hiring process. Historically, firms have always conducted two-stage, face-to-face interviews. However, it’s often more practical to ask candidates to be interviewed over a voice or video call in today’s digital age. If a candidate is interviewing for multiple roles, travelling to attend physical interviews in your offices can be draining. Use technology to your advantage and where possible, engage with your candidates in a virtual setting to further streamline your process. 

Offer Rapid Feedback 

It is vital for hiring managers to provide their internal recruitment team with feedback as quickly as possible after the interview. A delay in feedback can elongate your hiring process, losing momentum and candidate engagement. If there are multiple weeks between interviews, candidates will often have moved on and been taken off the market by another firm. It’s therefore essential to provide feedback as soon as possible to keep the interview process as short and slick as possible.

Build Personal Connections

It’s important not to neglect the personal element of an interview. Candidates are increasingly concerned with work-life balance, company culture and their mental wellbeing at work, so it’s important to build a connection with them on a personal level. This is more than being friendly during the interview. Hiring managers are required to understand the candidate’s motivations and explain the potential for development, training and progression in the role. That’s what makes a firm stand out when candidates are interviewing for multiple roles at once. 

Conclusion

In such a competitive candidate market, it’s essential that your interview process is engaging and efficient. That can be achieved by cutting out any unnecessary steps, substituting members of your interview panel where appropriate and focussing on understanding and engaging the candidates. Doing all of these things with speed will create a streamlined process that benefits both you and your potential hires. 

Effectively managing your team is the key to getting the best from them. As a specialist Legal Risk & Compliance recruitment agency we often act as advisors for professionals who are going into leadership roles. On Episode 1 of the UNCOVER Pod we spoke to Dieter Mack, who is the Head of Conflicts, Ethics & Commercial Advisory at Ashurst. His unique approach to management has seen his team thrive, so we asked him for his insights on getting the most out of your people*. 

How did you develop your management style, and how would you describe it now?

The last three years have changed what we considered our norms, and what we are managing for and against. The pandemic introduced us to thinking about the working space differently, from new technological solutions to the upheaval of typical, in-office, five-days-a-week working. As leaders we’re looking for the right solution for that. Every firm and manager has their own opinion, but from employee feedback we know that the general feeling is that there are great benefits from spending in-person time with your mentors. Trainees benefit most from extended contact time. 

The Russia-Ukraine war has impacted our moral landscape as well, which we also have to consider when managing people. That’s changed our criteria for how we evaluate our clients, and how our clients evaluate us. The UN has shared its notes about human rights in business and explained how everyone has a responsibility to seriously consider human rights in the workplace. We’re now considering what privileges we gain from the detriments of others, whether it’s slave labour or less obvious issues. Every law firm is going to need to wrap its head around these new factors. Anyone working or interested in compliance is going to need to be comfortable and familiar with their reasoning criteria when we have these conversations with the stakeholders in the business. 

When you’re looking at management in risk compliance, there are two general trends that you always have to look at, which are quantitative and qualitative management. Quantitative management is about ‘Are we able to deliver the SLA? How fast can we turn around the approval wherever it is required in the network? Etc.’ The qualitative aspect is about understanding the risks to the quality of your decisions. If you’re cutting corners and therefore the quality of your work, your team doesn’t get value or growth out of the role. Investments in the individuals you work with are the key to retaining a team that cares about each other and the business they’re in. You have to respond to all of those things to provide what I call human-led management. 

How have you applied those things to the day-to-day management of your team? 

I think of the human experience as the guide for my management style. That informs how we treat each other, tackle our daily work and create an optimised resource and cost allocation against the requirements of those tasks. When you have 100 problems, you might say, well, I need 10 people to work their full day to be able to solve these 100 problems for me on a daily basis. But that’s the wrong calculation. You actually need 12, because somebody is going to be sick, and somebody’s going to be on holiday. You also need to make the important assessment of what a human needs to feel that they’re valued, that they’re growing, and that they have a fair transaction in the contract that they enter into for the role. 

It’s important to recognise the value of every person that is giving their day to work in your organisation or team. That value exchange needs to be very clear, insofar as that they need to be able to get the most out of their working day while they’re there. That puts an onus on management to go, ‘Okay, how do I meet my side of the bargain by providing you with the best working experience and transactional value? You should see progress in your development, so we will spend time on ensuring that I understand who you are, what you need, and how you can be at your best. When you’re at your best, you are working in a team that attains high performance in a happy way, not with an angry face.’ Being happy and healthy is the best way to get the best out of your team. 

Approaching any situation, whether it is your interpersonal relationships, how you deal with challenges, etc, you need an open mind and happiness. That comes from good relationships with your peers and your team. It’s up to management to focus on ensuring that people’s needs are being met, because otherwise, naturally, some people will underperform, other people will notice, and resentment will build up. If you give people dignity, you lift each other up, you recognise the value of every human in your community and see yourself as having value, you’re making somebody else’s life better in your proximity, and that will lead to better things for you too.

How do you think your management contributes to the health of the firm? 

It helps us retain and grow our talent. When people feel like they have purpose and that they’re challenged, we do better as a company. Nobody wants to be bored, because when you’re bored, you fall asleep at the wheel. We challenge people in a good, healthy and happy way with support around them. There are challenges, because money never comes from an endless pot. Any of those physical aspects or material needs have to be met, because otherwise people won’t survive in your company. After that, you need to focus on the very simple question, how can I be my best? It’s a continuous journey, but it’s one that relies on a community that is supporting and affirming each other, which is the healthiest way to be. 

To hear more about effectively managing people in the Legal Risk & Compliance sector, tune into The UNCOVER Pod. 

* Responses have been edited for length and clarity.