Evidencing judgement in law firms under regulatory scrutiny

The gap isn’t compliance. It’s evidence.

Firms can often show what their policies say. They can usually show the final outcome too. What’s hardest — and increasingly demanded — is the durable record of how judgement was exercised in context.

• what information was available at the time
• what risks were identified (and by whom)
• what challenge occurred (and what was accepted or rejected)
• what reliance was placed on third parties, tools, or assumptions
• what was escalated, recorded, and approved

When scrutiny arrives, organisations rarely “did nothing”. They usually acted reasonably — but the record of that reasonableness is fragmented across matter notes, emails, document systems, spreadsheets, and institutional memory.

Where the evidence trail most often breaks

In practice, evidence fails in predictable ways — not through negligence, but through normal operations:

1. Timeline drift — the sequence of events can’t be confidently reconstructed.
2. Decision drift — rationale changes as it’s rewritten after the fact.
3. Ownership drift — responsibility becomes unclear.
4. System drift — the “source of truth” moves as tools and storage evolve.

Scrutiny doesn’t ask “did you have a policy?”

It asks questions closer to:

• What did you know at the time?
• Who challenged the decision?
• What options were considered and rejected?
• What reliance was placed on tools or third parties?
• Can you show the record is complete and unaltered?

In other words: scrutiny wants a record of governance behaviour, not a statement of governance intent.

Why this matters now

As firms scale and matter volumes increase, the cost of reconstructing decision histories rises sharply. The pain shows up as:

• slow responses to regulator or insurer queries
• evidence assembled under pressure and disagreement
• duplicated effort across teams
• avoidable reputational drag even when outcomes were sound

What governance evidence looks like in practice

Governance evidence is the durable, timestamped record of judgement — preserved as decisions are made, not rewritten afterwards.

• clear decision logs (what, when, by whom)
• supporting evidence sets (inputs, risks, reliance)
• traceable responsibility maps
• integrity checks so evidence can be verified

If a decision made six months ago is challenged tomorrow, can you show — calmly, quickly, and credibly — how judgement was exercised at the time?