Most forensics, investigations and disputes careers start in the same place: a large firm. The Big Four and the major consultancies remain the field's training ground, the place where you learn the craft, earn your qualifications, and get your first taste of serious matters.
But the interesting question isn't where you begin; rather it's where you go next, and why.
The three classic environments in this field, big firm, boutique, and in-house, each offer something different. And understanding these differences is the key to building a career by design, rather than by accident.
The Big Four (and the majors): the foundation
There's a reason so many careers launch here. Large firms offer scale, structure and variety that's almost impossible to replicate elsewhere. You'll rotate across fraud investigations, disputes, forensic technology, valuations and regulatory work, often before you've decided which you prefer.
You'll get formal training, a clear promotion track, and the qualifications - a chartered or certified accountant designation, perhaps a CFE or CFF - that serve as your passport for the rest of your career.
The other advantage is the calibre and profile of the work. Big firms win the largest, most complex, most cross-border mandates, and being staffed on one early is genuinely formative. The brand on your CV also opens doors indefinitely.
The trade-offs are equally real. On big matters you may spend a long time deep in one workstream, seeing a slice of the picture rather than the whole. Progression is structured but can be slow, and as you rise, the work tilts toward managing teams and selling work rather than doing the analysis you may have joined for. For many people, the large firm is the ideal place to build a foundation…and, after five to ten years, the ideal place to leave.
The boutique: depth, ownership and proximity to the work
Specialist forensic and disputes boutiques have grown enormously as an alternative, and they attract people at a specific moment: when you want more ownership and less machinery. In a smaller firm you're closer to the client, closer to the evidence, and closer to the partners. You'll likely run engagements end to end rather than owning a fragment, and you'll often specialise more deeply in the niche the boutique is known for.
Boutiques can also move faster on progression and reward for people who deliver, and the culture is frequently more entrepreneurial; your contribution is visible, and it counts. For someone who has built breadth at a large firm and now wants depth and autonomy, this is a natural next step.
What you give up is the scale and safety net. Pipeline can be lumpier, so you feel the rhythm of the market more directly. There's less formal training and infrastructure; you're expected to already have the craft. And the breadth of matter types may narrow, which is a benefit if you've found your specialism and a constraint if you haven't.
Choosing a boutique well means choosing one whose specialism genuinely matches where you want to go.
In-house: influence, prevention and a different clock
The third path takes you inside the organisations that used to be your clients: into the forensic, investigations, compliance or internal audit functions of banks, corporates and regulators. The nature of the work changes here in ways that suit some people perfectly - and frustrate others.
In-house, you move from advising on problems to owning them. You're no longer parachuted in for a single matter and then gone; you live with the consequences, build the controls, and increasingly work to prevent issues rather than only investigate them after the fact. You gain deep knowledge of one business and real organisational influence, and you often trade the relentless deadline pressure and utilisation targets of practice for a more sustainable rhythm and, frequently, better work-life balance.
The downsides? Variety usually shrinks: one organisation, one set of problems (however large). Compensation structures differ from practice, and the sheer intensity of high-profile external mandates is rarer. Some practitioners miss the pace and the constant novelty. For others, the depth, stability and sense of building something lasting are exactly the point.
There's no single right route
The most important thing to understand is that this isn't a ladder with in-house at the top. It's a set of environments, and the right sequence depends entirely on what you want at a given stage. A common and healthy pattern is big firm for foundation, boutique for depth and ownership, in-house for influence and balance. However, plenty of successful careers move in a different order, or return to practice after a stint in-house, or never leave the large-firm partner track at all.
A few questions tend to clarify the choice:
- Do you want breadth or depth right now?
- How much do you value autonomy versus structure and safety?
- Are you energised by novelty and pace, or by building something durable over years? And where do you want to be five years from now? (Because each move should be a step toward that, not just away from a current frustration.)
Careers in this field are long, and the skills transfer across all three environments, which means few moves are ever truly irreversible. The practitioners who thrive are the ones who move deliberately: who understand what each setting is really offering, weigh it against what they want, and time their moves accordingly.
Leonid specialises in forensics, investigations and disputes recruitment across Big 4, consultancies, boutiques and in-house teams. If you're weighing your next move, we can help you map the options…and find the right one. Please reach out to Adam Nelson to discuss current opportunties.