More than a third of legal sector employees would consider changing industry to obtain better workplace benefits, according to research from Zest, which also found high levels of reported pressure and limited use of existing reward packages.
In the legal sector responses, 36% said they wanted to switch sectors for better benefits. Some 66% said they felt overwhelmed by their work, while only 34% reported using all the benefits available through their employer. The findings highlight the difference between providing a package and ensuring that employees understand and use it.
Fewer than six in ten legal respondents, 57%, said they knew what perks were available. Half regarded their benefits package as inadequate, while 43% felt it provided value for money. More than half wanted employers to invest in better benefits, and 53% said benefit quality affected workplace morale.
The figures come from analysis of an Opinium survey of 2,000 UK workers conducted between 11 and 22 June 2026. The overall survey was weighted to be nationally representative, but the supplied statement does not specify the number of legal sector respondents or establish that the legal subgroup represents the entire profession. The sector percentages should therefore be interpreted with appropriate caution.
Zest, part of the Epassi group, published the benefits findings on 22 October. The company had already reported some of the June survey’s legal sector wellbeing findings in September, so the additional figures on benefits use and potential sector departures provide the distinct development.
Professional services employers depend heavily on retaining skilled staff whose training and client relationships take time to build. Replacing an experienced lawyer or specialist support professional can involve recruitment expenses, interrupted client work and the loss of organisational knowledge. Benefits programmes are one part of retention, although pay, workload, career progression and management culture remain important.
The survey cannot demonstrate that an individual benefit would prevent a particular employee from leaving. The fact that a respondent says better benefits would encourage a move is evidence of stated preference, not a measured resignation outcome. Similarly, self-reported stress does not establish the precise causes or severity of workplace ill health.
Nevertheless, low awareness and low utilisation raise practical questions about return on employer spending. Organisations may be paying for services that employees find difficult to access, unsuitable for their circumstances or poorly explained during onboarding and subsequent internal communications.
Reward teams need to examine actual usage, eligibility restrictions and the workforce groups that miss out. Different employees may value flexible working, health services, financial support or family benefits differently, making a single generic offering less effective than a package tested against workforce needs.
Communication is another operational issue. Benefits are frequently described in recruitment materials but become harder to locate once employees are established. Employers that introduce new arrangements without explaining eligibility or how to claim them may see weak engagement even when the available provision is comparatively generous.
Zest’s regional managing director, Antonio Barradas, argues for more personalised benefits and regular communication. That view aligns with the company’s commercial interest in benefits management technology and should be weighed alongside the survey evidence rather than treated as an independent finding.
The sector comparison also needs care. Different occupations have distinct working patterns, pay structures and expectations about time away from work, so differences in reported overwhelm may reflect many factors beyond benefits provision. Legal employers considering action should combine external benchmarks with their own retention data, sickness absence, confidential employee feedback and utilisation reports. Information gathered for health and wellbeing purposes must also be handled appropriately: employees may be unwilling to use support if they fear sensitive information could influence career decisions. Trust and confidentiality can therefore be as important as the number of benefits offered.
The wider message for legal employers is that retention cannot be assessed solely through salary bands and headline benefit expenditure. Monitoring how people experience their work, whether support is accessible and which measures employees actually value may provide more useful evidence for future investment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.