‘Brand’ influences more of our decisions than we perhaps realise. 

It affects what we buy, where we eat, the services we trust and, increasingly, where we look when we are thinking about our next career move. 

A familiar name carries weight. We already have a sense of who they are, what they do and what we might expect from them. When it comes to choosing an employer, that visibility can be particularly powerful. 

We see this regularly when speaking to lawyers in personal injury and clinical negligence. Larger national firms are often front of mind, particularly for those earlier in their careers. Their names are familiar, their vacancies are highly visible and there is usually plenty of information available about the careers, benefits and development opportunities they offer. 

For regional, independent and high street firms, that creates a different kind of recruitment challenge. 

Many can offer excellent quality work, closer access to senior lawyers, greater responsibility and genuine progression. But if those opportunities are less visible, candidates may simply be more likely to look towards the names they already know. 

So how does a regional firm compete when brand recognition is increasingly part of the career decision

The changing personal injury and clinical negligence market 

The structure of the legal market is changing. 

Personal injury, clinical negligence and other consumer-facing legal services have attracted increasing interest from private equity investors and larger legal groups. Firms including Fletchers and Express Solicitors have secured external investment to support growth, while groups such as Lawfront have expanded by acquiring established regional practices. 

This does not mean that independent firms are disappearing. The LexisNexis Bellwether Report 2026 found that 62% of small and mid-sized firms said they had grown compared with three or four years earlier. 

But it does mean that the competition around them has changed. 

Larger groups can benefit from centralised recruitment teams, highly visible career pages, established graduate programmes, recognised consumer brands and the resources to promote opportunities nationally. 

They can also recruit across several locations and, in some cases, offer candidates a wider range of internal career paths. 

For a regional firm, the risk is not necessarily that its opportunities are less attractive. It is that potential candidates never understand what those opportunities involve. 

Brand is not simply the logo above the door

When candidates talk about wanting to join a recognised brand, they are not always making a decision based on prestige alone. 

A strong employer brand can act as shorthand for several things: 

• structured training 
• modern systems and technology 
• visible career progression 
• financial stability 
• strong case pipelines 
• competitive benefits 
• opportunities to specialise 
• experience that will be recognised by future employers 

The SRA’s 2025 law firm workforce data found that younger lawyers are more heavily represented within larger firms. This does not prove that brand alone attracts them, but it does show the scale of the recruitment challenge facing smaller practices. 

A regional firm cannot assume that candidates will already know about its culture, the quality of its work or the careers people have built there. 

Those points need to be demonstrated. 

This means showing real examples of progression, introducing the lawyers who have developed within the firm and explaining how junior employees are trained. It means being clear about the type of cases someone will handle and the level of responsibility they can expect. 

A candidate should not have to reach the final interview before discovering the strongest reasons to join the firm. 

Turn existing strengths into a clear proposition 

Many independent firms already offer things that lawyers say they want. 

A junior clinical negligence lawyer may have more direct contact with partners, greater exposure to complex work and a clearer understanding of how a case progresses from the initial enquiry through to resolution. 

Someone working within a smaller team may be given more opportunity to develop client relationships, attend conferences with counsel or contribute to business development. 

The culture may also be less hierarchical and decisions may be made more quickly. 

These are meaningful advantages, but only when they are genuinely available and clearly communicated. 

Broad claims such as “friendly team”, “excellent progression” or “great culture” are unlikely to distinguish one firm from another. Candidates will want to know what those claims mean in practice. 

A more useful proposition might explain: 

• how frequently junior lawyers work directly with partners 
• when they begin managing their own files 
• what supervision is available 
• how the firm supports qualification and accreditation 
• examples of people who have progressed internally 
• the type and value of cases handled by the team 
• how performance and salary are reviewed 
• what the route towards senior associate or partnership looks like 

The objective is not to make the firm sound bigger than it is of couse. It is to make the benefits of its size more visible. 

Flexibility needs to be more than a line in the advert 

Working patterns remain one of the most influential parts of a legal professional’s decision to move. 

According to the Law Society’s 2026 guidance on flexible working, access to flexible working stands at 90% across the profession. However, this falls to 80% within small firms and 84% among younger solicitors. 

For regional firms, flexibility can therefore be a genuine recruitment advantage, particularly where national competitors have introduced more prescriptive office attendance. 

The important point is clarity. 

Advertising a position as hybrid without explaining what that means can create uncertainty. Candidates want to understand how often they are expected in the office, whether the arrangement changes during probation and whether there is any flexibility around where those days are worked. 

Firms should also distinguish between a working pattern that is available in theory and one that is supported culturally. 

If employees are permitted to work from home but feel that doing so will affect progression, visibility or access to better work, the policy is unlikely to support retention. 

Flexibility does not have to mean unrestricted remote working. Clinical negligence and personal injury teams still need effective supervision, collaboration and opportunities for junior lawyers to learn from more experienced colleagues. Sensitive client work may also benefit from face-to-face contact. 

A successful policy starts with the requirements of the role rather than an assumption that every employee must work in the same way. 

Is geography unnecessarily limiting the talent pool? 

Location remains a particular challenge for specialist PI and clinical negligence recruitment. 

Experienced lawyers are not distributed evenly across the country. A firm may find an excellent candidate who lives beyond a comfortable daily commute but could perform the role effectively through a combination of remote work and planned office attendance. 

That does not mean geography should never matter. A role involving regular local hearings, in-person client appointments or close supervision may require someone to be present more frequently. 

The question is whether the attendance requirement reflects the work itself or simply the way the firm has always operated. 

Before rejecting candidates on location, firms could consider: 

• which responsibilities genuinely require office attendance 
• whether team meetings could be grouped into planned office days 
• whether supervision can be delivered effectively through a mixture of online and in-person contact 
• whether a more experienced lawyer needs the same pattern as a trainee or paralegal 
• whether occasional travel would be workable for the right candidate 
• whether another office could provide a practical base 

A rigid location policy can dramatically reduce the available talent pool, whilst a carefully designed hybrid model can allow a firm to recruit more widely without losing the benefits of team connection and supervision. 

There is also a balance to strike. LawCare has highlighted the risk of isolation within hybrid legal teams, particularly where lawyers lack meaningful contact and a sense of belonging. 

The answer is not necessarily more compulsory attendance. It is creating purposeful opportunities for people to work, learn and connect together. 

Build the pipeline rather than waiting for it 

Many firms approach recruitment when an experienced fee earner leaves and an immediate replacement is needed. 

In specialist areas such as clinical negligence, that can mean competing for a relatively small number of candidates who already have the required experience. 

A more sustainable approach involves developing talent earlier. 

This might include creating structured routes for paralegals, trainees and solicitor apprentices, supporting employees through qualification or giving junior lawyers exposure to PI and clinical negligence work before they are expected to specialise. 

Relationships with universities, local law societies and professional organisations can help firms reach potential recruits before they have formed a fixed view of where they want to work. 

The structure around the opportunity is important. Junior candidates will want to know: 

• who will supervise them 
• what training they will receive 
• how their progress will be measured 
• whether the firm has supported others through the same route 
• what position may be available after qualification 
• how salary and responsibility will develop 

Recruiting potential without providing a clear development framework is unlikely to solve the longer-term pipeline problem. 

Retention has to be earned repeatedly 

There was a time when many legal professionals expected to spend a significant part of their career with one firm. 

That expectation is less reliable now. 

In our conversations with candidates, we increasingly meet lawyers who are prepared to move when progression becomes unclear, flexibility changes or their role no longer develops. They do not necessarily begin each position intending to leave after a few years, but neither do they assume that loyalty alone will eventually produce the career they want. 

This means firms cannot focus only on attracting new talent. They also need to understand why established employees might begin listening to other opportunities. 

Pay is part of that conversation, but it is rarely the only factor. 

Experienced lawyers may leave because they cannot see the next step, feel overloaded, want greater autonomy or believe they need to join a larger brand to strengthen their future prospects. 

Regular career conversations can identify these concerns before they become resignations. 

Rather than waiting for an annual appraisal, firms can ask: 

• Is the individual still gaining new experience? 
• Do they understand what they need to achieve to progress? 
• Has their working pattern remained suitable? 
• Is their caseload manageable? 
• Are they receiving enough support? 
• Do they feel recognised within the firm? 
• Are their salary and benefits still competitive? 
• Can they see a long-term future within the team? 

Exit interviews may explain why someone has left of course, but earlier conversations create an opportunity to retain them. 

In PI and clinical negligence work, retention also supports client service. Cases can continue for several years, and continuity of representation can be particularly important to clients who are already dealing with difficult or traumatic circumstances. 

Benefits need to reflect the people the firm wants to recruit 

Larger organisations often publish long benefit lists, but regional firms should not assume they need to replicate every perk. 

Benefits are most effective when they address the practical needs of the workforce. 

For one team, enhanced annual leave or flexible hours may matter most. For another, the strongest offer may involve funded professional memberships, support with qualification, enhanced family leave or a meaningful bonus structure. 

The firm should understand which benefits employees value and which are rarely used. 

It should then communicate the offer clearly. Candidates should not have to ask several times before discovering basic information about annual leave, pension contributions, hybrid working or professional development support. 

Transparency also helps avoid losing candidates later in the process when expectations do not match. 

The recruitment process is part of the employer brand 

A firm can invest in a new website and carefully written careers material, but a slow or unclear recruitment process can quickly undermine that work. 

Candidates form opinions through every interaction. 

They notice whether interviews are organised efficiently, whether the people they meet understand the role and whether feedback arrives when promised. They also notice when the working pattern or responsibilities described during the process differ from the original advert. 

For candidates considering several opportunities, these details can determine which firm appears best organised and most interested in them. 

Regional firms may have an advantage here. With fewer layers of approval, they can often make decisions more quickly and create a more personal recruitment experience. 

That advantage should be used deliberately. 

What can regional PI and clinical negligence firms do now? 

Competing with a large national brand does not require a firm to become one. 

It requires a clearer understanding of what the firm offers and a willingness to adapt where the existing proposition no longer meets the market. 

A practical starting point is to review the following areas:

1. Audit what candidates can currently see

Review the careers section of the website, job adverts, social media and employee reviews. Does the information explain why someone should join, or does it mainly describe what the firm wants from them?

2. Ask current employees why they stay

The most persuasive employer proposition is likely to come from the people already working within the team. Their answers may reveal strengths the leadership team has overlooked. 

3. Make progression specific

Replace general promises with clear examples, development expectations and genuine internal career stories.

4. Review the role before setting the attendance policy

Decide which parts of the position require office attendance, who needs the closest supervision and where flexibility could widen the available talent pool.

5. Compare the full offer with the market

Salary matters, but so do working hours, caseloads, bonus arrangements, annual leave, supervision and the quality of work. Firms need to understand how the complete opportunity compares.

6. Start developing future talent

Create realistic routes for paralegals, trainees, apprentices and lawyers moving from related areas. Explain how they will gain the experience needed to progress.

7. Speak to employees before they start looking

Use regular career and workload conversations to identify retention risks early.

8. Treat recruitment as a two-way process

Candidates are assessing the firm at the same time as the firm is assessing them. Clear communication, timely feedback and consistency matter.

9. Give your recruiter enough to sell the opportunity

A specialist recruiter can help a lesser-known firm compete for attention, particularly with candidates who may never have considered it themselves. 

Make sure they understand more than the job description. Share what makes the team, culture, work, progression and wider opportunity genuinely attractive so they can represent your firm properly in the market. 

Regional firms still have a compelling story to tell 

The growth of larger legal groups has changed the recruitment landscape, but it has not removed the advantages of working within an independent or regional practice. 

Many lawyers still want closer access to decision-makers, meaningful responsibility and the opportunity to build a reputation within a specialist team. 

They may value working for a firm with strong local relationships, a less complicated structure and a genuine interest in the individual behind the CV. 

The challenge is making sure those qualities are visible and supported by modern working practices. 

Brand may open the first door, but the substance of the opportunity will determine whether someone joins and whether they stay. 

At Clayton Legal, we work closely with PI and clinical negligence teams across the country, helping firms understand what candidates are looking for and how their offer compares with the wider market. 

Whether you are struggling to recruit in a particular location, reviewing your approach to hybrid working or thinking about how to build a longer-term talent pipeline, our team can provide an honest view of the market.