Insights

Fraud and asset recovery practices are busy, but that does not always translate into consistent growth. Matters are larger, more complex and often cross border, with more people involved and tighter timeframes than was previously the case.

At a headline level, there is no shortage of work. Firms and sets are regularly involved in high value, high profile matters, often coming in at speed and requiring an immediate response. The more interesting question, in my view, is where that work is actually coming from, and how consistent it really is over time.

What is becoming clearer is the extent to which this market is network driven. Instructions rarely arrive through formal processes alone. Instead, they tend to come through relationships between lawyers, counsel, investigators, forensic accountants and funders, often via referral networks that are not always visible from the outside.

For both firms and chambers, being part of that network is critical. The strongest practices tend to be those that are well connected, not just at an individual level but more broadly. That is less about formal processes and more about being known, trusted and consistently involved in the right conversations.

Whilst that model has always existed in this space, what feels more pronounced now is the pace at which those relationships translate into work, and the scale of the matters that follow.

The consequence is that growth does not build in a steady or predictable way. In my view, it tends to arrive in waves. A single instruction can generate a significant amount of work for a period of time, before things settle again. That is true whether you are looking at a disputes team within a firm or a set of chambers with a number of members working in the same area.

From the outside, that can look like sustained growth. In practice, it is often a series of strong mandates rather than a fully repeatable pipeline.

There is nothing inherently problematic about that. It is, to a large extent, the nature of fraud and asset recovery work. Instructions are driven by events, the discovery of an issue, the need to act quickly, or the escalation of a dispute, and that is unlikely to change.

What is becoming more apparent, however, is a shift in how some practices are thinking about this. There is a growing focus on how to create a degree of consistency around what is, by definition, an inconsistent flow of work.

In practical terms, that often comes back to how relationships are managed. Rather than relying solely on individual connections, there is more attention being given to how those networks are maintained over time and how they extend beyond any one person. For chambers, that can mean a more deliberate approach to how work is shared and how relationships are supported across members. For firms, it can involve a similar shift towards embedding those connections more broadly within the team.

None of this removes the opportunistic nature of the work, nor should it. Some of the best matters will always come in that way. The difference is that there is a clearer recognition that opportunism on its own is not always enough to sustain a practice over the longer term.

That, in turn, has implications for how the work is delivered once it arrives.

Fraud and asset recovery matters are often urgent, high stakes and require careful handling. It is entirely understandable that senior lawyers and leading counsel remain closely involved. At the same time, what I am seeing is that this can lead to a relatively small number of individuals carrying a significant proportion of the responsibility, particularly at key points in a matter.

Around that, teams and sets can be relatively lean. The gap between senior and junior levels can feel quite pronounced, particularly when matters are moving quickly.

The practices that seem to manage this most effectively are those that are able to create a bit more depth without losing control. In my view, that tends to come from relatively straightforward things done consistently, clearer delegation, earlier exposure for mid level lawyers, and a willingness to trust people with responsibility before everything feels completely comfortable.

The connection between the two points is important. Where the flow of work is uneven, the ability to absorb that pressure becomes critical. Without the right structure around it, even strong pipelines can feel difficult to sustain.

None of this is about changing the nature of fraud and asset recovery work. The unpredictability is part of what makes it interesting, and in many cases where the best work comes from.

What is changing is the context. The pace is faster, the matters are more complex, and expectations, from clients and within teams, are higher.

Winning the work remains essential, and in a market that is increasingly network driven, it is something that requires ongoing focus rather than a one-off effort. But increasingly, what determines long term success is what happens next, how that work is embedded, supported and built on over time.

– Lucy Burrows – Senior Consultant, ABC Legal Talent