How Legal Recruitment Teams Should Be Hiring for What Comes Next

Across many of the conversations I have with senior legal leaders across Scotland, one theme comes up more often than any other. Hiring no longer feels straightforward. Even where teams are growing, there is uncertainty about whether traditional approaches to recruitment are still fit for purpose.

This is not driven by one market shift or practice area. It reflects broader changes in the legal profession itself. Regulatory reform, the growing presence of artificial intelligence, and changing expectations around how legal teams operate appear to be forcing firms and in-house functions to think more carefully about the people they bring in.

From hiring for experience to hiring for resilience

For a long time, legal recruitment has prioritised certainty. Strong technical experience, a clear practice background, and evidence of having “done the job before”. These remain important. The issue is not that they are wrong, but that on their own they may no longer be enough.

The Law Society of Scotland has been explicit about the scale of change facing the profession. Its priorities for the year ahead include implementing new regulatory measures and supporting solicitors as AI becomes more embedded in legal practice, alongside wider reform and digital transformation. 

That context matters for hiring. When the shape of practice is evolving, the qualities that make someone effective inevitably evolve as well. 

More legal leaders are beginning to think about future-proofing their organisation, and whether there needs to be a greater emphasis placed on softer skills like adaptability, communication, and self-awareness.

Adaptability is key, but rarely tested properly

Interview processes still focus heavily on validating historical experience. That is understandable in a profession built on precedent and risk management. However, experience alone does not always reveal how someone responds when processes change, technology reshapes workflows, or regulatory expectations shift.

From what I see in the market, hiring challenges increasingly arise not from a lack of candidates, but from how teams assess potential. They know what qualities they value, but the interview process is not always designed to bring them out.

AI in hiring highlights the need for trust and transparency

The role of AI is another area where good intentions need careful handling. Used sensibly, AI can support efficiency and consistency in recruitment. Used without clarity, it can create uncertainty.

Our own Eden Scott research, published in ‘The Art of the Interview’, shows that many candidates feel cautious when AI is used in shortlisting. The hesitation is not about resisting progress, but about wanting reassurance that their skills and experience will be considered fairly and in context.

This aligns closely with the wider discussion about technology and regulation in the profession. As AI becomes more prominent in legal work itself, the way it is used in hiring also becomes a signal of organisational values and judgement. 

Interview quality reflects organisational clarity

One of the strongest messages from The Art of the Interview is how closely interview behaviour is linked to candidate confidence. A lack of preparation resulting in interviews starting late, arriving unprepared, being unclear around the scope of the role, or shifting expectations can quickly undermine trust.

These issues are rarely just about courtesy. More often, they indicate a lack of internal alignment. If a legal team has not taken the time to define what it really needs, that uncertainty inevitably shows up in the interview process.

In my experience, when hiring feels drawn out or inconsistent, it is often because the organisation is still working out what success in the role actually looks like.

Better questions matter more than longer processes

To often I have seen teams respond to uncertainty by adding interview stages. The intention is usually to reduce risk. Our research suggests the opposite can happen. Most candidates expect no more than two interviews, and appetite drops quickly beyond that point.

A shorter, well?structured process is usually more effective. Competency?based interviewing, which we outline in The Art of the Interview, allows teams to explore how candidates think, prioritise, and adapt, rather than relying solely on technical recall.

The same applies to technical testing. When it is clearly aligned to the role and proportionate in scope, it can provide some useful insight. However, to often it is poorly defined or excessive, and it can deter strong candidates and damage the employer brand.

Hiring sends a message about the future

Every hiring process communicates something about how an organisation operates. Candidates notice how decisions are made, how people are treated, and how clearly responsibilities are defined.

As the Scottish legal profession navigates regulatory reform, technological change, and increasing complexity, hiring has become one of the clearest expressions of how seriously teams are thinking about their future capability.

A question worth returning to

So, in conclusion, there is one question I often encourage legal leaders to reflect on. Are we hiring for what this role has historically been, or for how it is likely to change over the next few years?

Answering that question shapes everything that follows. How roles are defined. How interviews are run. How potential is assessed. It does not mean lowering standards or moving away from technical excellence. It means being deliberate about what kind of professional environment you are building.

That thinking sits at the heart of The Art of the Interview. It is not about process for its own sake. It is about helping teams in Scotland make considered hiring decisions in a profession that is evolving faster than many hiring habits have.