Employment screening is back in the spotlight in the UK, following a high-profile public appointment that turned sour. 

I’m not interested in critiquing the Peter Mandelson case. 

What it does raise is an important question for those of us in law: how confident are we that our processes stop the wrong people getting into our firm?

Most firms have background checks. What matters is how they operate in practice. 

When a candidate impresses checks can shift from being a safeguard to a formality. Under pressure to hire, with a strong individual in front of you, it can be tempting to treat vetting as something to get through, rather than something that might change the outcome. 

Standards are not always as consistent as we like to think. 

In some firms, accountability increases with seniority. In others, the opposite happens. 

Either way, the tone is set from the top and so is the firm’s reputation. 

I’ve seen what happens when it goes wrong, and how predictable it often is in hindsight. 

Appointments can be waved through on the basis of charm, connections and claimed achievements, sometimes in the knowledge of behaviours that run counter to the firm's values. Fee earners and business services professionals may be treated differently. Exceptions get made. Standards are allowed to slip for commercial expediency. 

Many of us will recognise the pattern: individuals whose track record raises concerns in one organisation are able to move easily to another.  

Where due diligence relies on reputation rather than rigour, risk is transferred rather than managed. 

Earlier in my career, I introduced rigorous background checks and was responsible for determining whether candidates met the required standard. In the early days, I was struck by how much judgement the role required. Those decisions were not always easy, or welcomed. 

The system only worked because two things were clear: the standard was non-negotiable, and it was backed at the top. 

That matters particularly in law. 

Integrity, honesty and accuracy are not “nice to haves”. Factual errors on CVs can be surprisingly bold and can herald much bigger problems later. 

I have also seen what happens when controls weaken and oversight reduces, particularly when processes are treated as administrative and moved away from those with real visibility of risk. 

Five key questions

So a few questions worth asking: 

• Are background checks treated as risk management or administration? 

• Are standards consistent across levels and roles? 

• Do standards become higher — or looser — at senior levels? 

• Who makes the final call — and are they supported when the answer is “no”? 

• Where are exceptions made — and how controlled is that process? 

Strong hiring decisions protect people, clients and the firm itself. Weak ones tend to resurface, often at the worst possible moment. 

If you’re in a leadership role, this is worth stress-testing. Most issues don’t come from a lack of process, but from whether it is respected or dismissed when the pressure is on.