The Archive - First Edition: Ben Scott, Company Secretary, Head of Legal and DPO at Freemans Grattan Holdings
Introducing Think Legal's In-House Legal Archive…
We’re launching something new today. The In-House Legal Archive is a long-form interview series with General Counsel and senior in-house lawyers across the UK.
Think Legal Recruitment has been building in-house legal teams across the UK for years, working with GCs, Heads of Legal and Senior Legal Counsel at organisations across every major sector. The Archive is an extension of the conversations we’ve always had: the candid ones, about careers and the profession and where it’s all heading.
We wanted to create a space where GCs could talk honestly about their careers. The transition in-house, the reality of the role, what they got wrong, what they’d change about the profession, and where they think it’s all heading.
Over time, the Archive will build into something more than a collection of individual interviews. It will be a portrait of the in-house legal profession in the UK. How it looked, how it thought, and what it was grappling with at the time.
We hope you’ll enjoy it! If you’re a GC or senior in-house lawyer, please consider being part of it. Say hello to Adam or Andy for more information.
ARCHIVE RECORD 001: BEN SCOTT
Company Secretary, Head of Legal and DPO
FGH (Freemans Grattan Holdings)
Interviewed by: Adam Zdravkovic and Andy Balmer
Our frst interview is with Ben Scott. Based in Yorkshire, FGH is an online fashion brand and part of the Otto Group, a German conglomerate with a turnover exceeding £10bn.
Originally a corporate finance lawyer in private practice, Ben moved in-house with M&S and has since served as Head of Legal for HomeServe and Nisa. With a decade spent on Executive Committees, Ben brings a distinctively commercial outlook to the legal and company secretarial functions.
What struck us immediately about Ben is a complete absence of ego. In a profession that often prioritises status and "legacy", Ben is refreshingly detached from both. He is a "strong beliefs, loosely held" kind of leader: someone who has navigated the high-pressure environments of M&S and AIM-listed PLCs but has emerged with a grounded, almost philosophical perspective on what actually matters.
Beyond the corporate world, Ben’s values are anchored in community. He spent three years running a charity, sitting on the board as an Executive Director and Deputy-Chair. Working alongside people passionate about making a local difference clearly left its mark; it’s likely where he honed that "safe pair of hands" approach that boards value so much.
He is honest, occasionally blunt about the realities of private practice, and deeply committed to the idea that a great lawyer should be a business person first and a legal technician second.
Most people have a surface-level understanding of what FGH does. What do they tend to get wrong?
Most people remember us from the catalogue days, but Freemans, Kaleidoscope, and Grattan are still going strong: we are entirely online now. People are often surprised to learn we no longer own Evri, and that we are owned by the Otto Group, which is a massive German conglomerate with a turnover in excess of £10bn.
What does the legal function look like here?
It consists of myself, a senior lawyer, a legal executive, and two data protection specialists. Because I am the Company Secretary, I attend all board meetings and report directly to the FD. As a lean business, I tend to be involved in a significant amount of strategic matters.
What is the regulatory landscape your team is navigating that outsiders might not appreciate?
Probably consumer credit, which forms a major part of the business. We are directly regulated by the FCA so we’ve been subject to that, when other companies have not. Many people will be familiar with Klarna – that’s a plugin that many retailers use which means they don’t need a regulatory function (at the moment).
Generally, the buy now pay later market has not been directly regulated by the FCA, but this is changing this year, which is great for consumers. These companies now need to register with the FCA and undertake affordability checks on consumers applying for credit.
Why is now an interesting time to be part of FGH?
After some challenging years, the business is starting to grow, which stands in contrast to many of our competitors right now.
Was law a calling or a calculation?
I actually wanted to be an actor! Law was something to fall back on. I looked at the Bristol Old Vic in 1996, but the fees were £12,000 and I couldn’t afford it. Law looked "okay" as a career. Honestly, I was probably inspired most by LA Law.
What turned out to be completely wrong about your initial expectations of the job?
Two things.
First, no one was interested in my development; I had to learn to look to myself for that. Took me years to realise that everyone else was just looking out for their own careers. Perhaps I was unlucky!
Second, and the thing which no aspiring lawyer I’ve spoken to has realised, is that your day is split into 6 minute increments and you have to account for every unit in your working day. For me that was soul destroying, and I wasn’t very good at recording time.
In private practice, your legal knowledge is a given, but success is driven by fee generation and recovery rates. In-house is so much more fulfilling.
What did private practice teach you that you only recognised as valuable later?
When I was at Hammonds (now Squire Patton Boggs) I remember the then senior partner Richard Burns saying one thing that’s always remained with me. When someone is reviewing a document you’ve drafted, no-one cares whether it was done at 3am or 3pm. The document has to be right – no excuses. I think that’s right and is an important part of being a lawyer. The documents have to be right.
What is the skill nobody told you was essential to the role?
Showing that you’re a "safe pair of hands." The board wants to know you are on top of the risks and that you’ll shout when there is an issue. You have to be proactive and commercial. Understand the key drivers of the business.
How do you hold the line when the business wants you to find a way to say yes, and the right answer is no?
So much of our legal training is to look for the worst-case result! Legal departments are often viewed as blockers. I tell my teams to think first of how we can achieve what the business wants. If you have a reputation for supporting goals and clearly outlining risks, the business will respect it when you eventually have to say no.
What’s the real difference between a technically excellent lawyer and one who will thrive in-house?
It’s about commercial context. The example I use of a great in house lawyer: Imagine a business wants to terminate a supplier contract, but the notice period is unclear.
A technical lawyer talks about "reasonable notice” and will give an appropriate answer.
But the real answer to that question is to ascertain when the supplier’s financial year end is. Because they will have budgeted for the business continuing through their current financial year. Removing that business before their year-end will impact their financials, and possibly even individuals’ bonuses. In those circumstances, if you terminate before their year-end, they’ll have an issue and could well fight you. But if you terminate at, or after their year-end, then their current year results won’t be affected, and they’ll be able to budget accordingly for next years.
This is the difference between being a good lawyer, and being an excellent in-house lawyer.
Has AI changed anything about how your team actually works yet?
We’re starting to use AI, but hallucinations are real.
But some questions I can ask and it answers in a few seconds what currently might take a junior lawyer a day to research. So the changes are coming.
If the industry can sort out the hallucinations, then at that point we’ll see significant changes in the industry.
What do you want to have left behind that would make this period of your career feel worthwhile?
Nothing! The idea that you can build something lasting or leave a "legacy" in a company is pure ego. When you leave, the company just continues on.
What do you do that has nothing to do with law, that has somehow made you better at it?
Attending board meetings. Understanding what is important, what gets discussed. If you’re an aspiring GC, then get yourself attending a board meeting. Offer to take minutes. Just hearing people operating at that level is important.
What’s something you’ve completely changed your mind about in the last five years?
I’ve changed my mind about so many things over the years – politics, religion, smacking, using disabled loos.
That’s led me to a simple phrase – “strong beliefs loosely held”. Ie believe something, but don’t be so arrogant as to assume you’re right. Accept that you may be wrong about something, and be willing to change your mind about it. The Dunning Kruger effect is real. Once you understand that, you’ll lose the ego and help yourself develop.
OFF TOPIC – ONE FOR FUN…
We are food lovers here at Think Legal… and don’t talk about much else in the office. What is your current favourite restaurant, and why? What do they serve?
Going out to restaurants now is so expensive!
