For years, pay and job satisfaction were blamed for the exodus of in-house legal talent – but a new report has revealed the biggest reason lawyers are walking out the door.
A new study by Axiom has shattered long-held assumptions about why in-house legal teams leave their roles, revealing that job satisfaction and pay are no longer the primary drivers of talent attrition.
The 2026 Axiom Global In-House Talent Study, which surveyed 544 legal professionals across eight countries, discovered that 83 per cent reported high job satisfaction and 98 per cent felt fairly compensated.
So, if lawyers are happy and well-paid, what’s driving them out of their current roles?
The report revealed that the true retention killer is operational pressure, with legal professionals in high-stress environments 10 times more likely to be actively job hunting than those in lower-pressure settings.
Sara Morgan, Axiom’s chief revenue officer, explained that operational pressure has skyrocketed to become the top retention risk for in-house lawyers, as it forces them into reactive, routine work that drains motivation and prevents them from focusing on high-impact, strategic tasks that truly drive value for their careers and the business.
“Operational pressure forces legal professionals to work toward the path of least resistance rather than at the top of their capabilities, and that’s profoundly demotivating over time,” Morgan said.
“In-house lawyers want to focus on strategic, high-impact work that adds genuine value to the business and their careers.
“But when teams are understaffed or lack access to specialised resources, they’re forced into reactive mode. Instead of solving complex business problems, they’re drowning in routine work that doesn’t leverage their expertise.”
She explained that the core problem lies in the mismatch between how legal work has evolved – becoming increasingly complex and multidisciplinary – and how in-house departments are structured, with static models still built for straightforward legal advice.
“The fundamental issue is a mismatch between how legal work has evolved and how departments are structured. In-house teams handle increasingly complex, multidisciplinary matters with models built for straightforward legal advice. The work has transformed whilst infrastructure remains static,” Morgan said.
The compounding financial impact
While the easy response for organisations might be to sweep these issues under the rug, the long-term impact of ignoring this retention challenge is substantial.
Research from the Society for Human Resource Management estimates that replacing a senior legal professional can cost 50–200 per cent of annual salary, or $300,000–$500,000 in hiring and onboarding costs, plus six to 12 months of reduced productivity.
However, Morgan stressed that losing a senior lawyer costs far more than recruitment fees, as it also means the loss of years of hard-earned institutional knowledge.
“Direct costs are substantial, but the compounding effect proves more damaging. Losing a senior lawyer means more than recruitment fees. You lose not only the person but the institutional knowledge that takes years to build and vanishes overnight,” Morgan said
How best to tackle this issue
So, how can legal leaders tackle this issue effectively?
According to Morgan, legal leaders must acknowledge the problem even when surveys look positive, emphasising the importance of candid conversations to uncover whether their teams are genuinely operating sustainably or simply hiding their overwhelm behind polite responses.
“First, recognise that the problem exists, even if satisfaction surveys appear positive. Legal leaders need honest conversations about whether their teams are genuinely operating in a sustainable way or simply being polite in the surveys when they are actually overwhelmed,” Morgan said.
While the easy solution might seem to be hiring more staff, Morgan warned that leaders can’t simply hire their way out of capacity challenges, urging teams to embrace strategic partnerships and innovative approaches to manage workloads more effectively.
“Second, recognise you can’t hire your way out. Nearly every legal department in our study reports difficulty hiring quality talent. Even with [an] unlimited budget and headcount, the talent pool is constrained,” Morgan said.
“The question becomes: how do you solve capacity challenges when you can’t add capacity traditionally? Strategic partnerships with an Axiom will become essential, along with thinking creatively about how to better manage your team through the highs and lows of workload, alongside an Axiom solution.”
