Before You Send Your CV

Earlier this year, a senior clinical development executive contacted me about an opportunity with a biotechnology company. The role was supposedly based in the United States, and she had already shared her CV and other personal information.

I asked her a fairly straightforward question, does the company actually exist?

We spent some time looking into it, and there was no credible company presence that we could establish, no proper contact details and nothing to substantiate the opportunity.

Then again only this morning, a separate trusted biotechnology board director described something similar that had happened to them.

This time concerning a non-executive position. He had already made his own enquiries to establish whether the supposed recruiter was genuine.

In a third instance, an experienced biotech executive received a detailed approach about a CEO position. The description was convincing, the remuneration attractive and the requirements closely matched his background. Yet when we began asking questions, it was difficult to establish whether the individual making the approach was actually recruiting on behalf of the company.

These were all experienced leaders in biotech, and all familiar with executive recruitment. Quite the opposite of people who might ordinarily be considered vulnerable to such approaches.

These conversations have made us at Mazards think about how easily a plausible opportunity can attract someone's interest, particularly when senior positions are relatively scarce. In other words, it seems scammers are playing on the emotions of a recovering market.

But this is not confined to our own experiences.

In July 2026, the Private Directors Association warned its members about convincing approaches for board and advisory appointments, including an instance involving the impersonation of an established recruiter. Major biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, including Biogen and Roche, have also issued public warnings about fraudulent recruitment approaches using their names. The Association of Executive Search and Leadership Consultants (AESC) has similarly published guidance on recruitment fraud and impersonation. [1, 2, 5]

So to decide how to advise, we looked inward. Much of our professional history is publicly available. LinkedIn, company websites, scientific publications and conference presentations provide considerable detail about our careers, experience and professional relationships. With readily available technology, putting together a convincing approach tailored to a particular executive is not especially difficult.

Of course, there is nothing unusual about receiving an unsolicited approach. That is how plenty of executive search works. We regularly contact people who are not actively looking for another position, often on behalf of companies whose plans are confidential.

And in biotechnology, where companies may be operating in stealth or preparing for a financing, there are perfectly legitimate reasons why little information may initially be available.

The question is whether you know who you are dealing with and what will happen to the information you provide.

What is at risk?

For senior executives in biotech, there are additional considerations.

Interest in a position is often highly confidential. A CEO, CSO, CMO, board director, etc. may be managing an important clinical programme, preparing for a financing or working through a significant transaction. The unintended disclosure of their interest in moving could create unnecessary difficulties with boards or investors. Professional executive search standards specifically recognise the importance of protecting confidentiality. [3]

There is also the information executives carry with them.

Unpublished research, clinical development plans, intellectual property, licensing discussions and investor relationships are not matters to be shared casually. An apparently routine conversation about someone's experience can stray into information that should remain confidential.

Indeed, UK protective security guidance warns that some individuals posing as recruiters may be interested in the information and professional access a person holds, rather than their suitability for a particular position. [4]

None of this should discourage people from exploring opportunities. It simply makes it worthwhile to ensure who is asking you questions, and why.

Technology is obscuring who is behind the approach

There is another side to this that I think is worth mentioning.

Recently, we were approached by a business offering AI-driven services through LinkedIn and email. The demo materials were impressive in several respects, particularly their ability to prepare highly personalised approaches. What concerned us was how those approaches would be made.

Part of this company's proposed service involved using LinkedIn accounts presented as individual professionals, alongside anonymised email accounts, to initiate conversations on behalf of businesses that would not initially be identified. The business behind the approach would only be disclosed once the recipient had expressed an interest. We found that uncomfortable.

Just because technology makes something possible, does that make it professionally acceptable?

There is nothing inherently wrong with using AI. We are anything but Luddites here at Mazards, and recognise technology's considerable benefits. But there is an important difference between using technology to support a genuine professional relationship and using it in a way that leaves someone uncertain about who is actually contacting them.

In other words, trust is so much of our business.

I am not suggesting that the provider was acting unlawfully. That is not the point. It was simply not an approach we felt comfortable adopting at Mazards, and of course we did not proceed.

For us, the person receiving an approach should know who is behind it and why they are making contact. Otherwise, how can they trust us or any other recruiter? That seems a reasonable starting point for any professional relationship.

It also reinforces the question at the heart of this: before sharing information, are you confident you know who you're dealing with?

Five sensible precautions

Many of the most successful appointments begin with an unexpected conversation, and I would certainly encourage people to remain open to them.

So, a few practical suggestions:

• Speak to the recruiter early. Arrange a telephone or video conversation using independently verified contact details. A telephone call alone does not establish that someone is genuine. A convincing impersonator may be perfectly willing to speak with you.

• Check who you are dealing with. Look beyond LinkedIn. Verify the individual, their firm, and, where possible, the company behind the opportunity.

• Protect your confidentiality. Establish who will see your CV and obtain reassurance that it will not be shared without your permission.

• Be careful with sensitive information. Your professional background is one thing. Non-public scientific, commercial and personal information is quite another.

• Ask if something does not add up. A genuine recruiter should welcome sensible questions about the opportunity and the process.

If the company's identity cannot yet be disclosed, the recruiter should still be able to explain the broad nature of the opportunity and their involvement.

And do not rely on an LLM alone to verify whether a company is genuine. Check for yourself. It's worth the time.

Trust is a two-way responsibility

Those of us working in executive search have responsibilities here, too.

People trust us with information about their careers, ambitions and circumstances. That trust deserves to be respected, whether or not a particular conversation leads to an appointment.

Technology has an important place in recruitment, and will continue to. But it should support professional judgement, discretion and personal relationships, not replace them. None of these precautions should get in the way of a genuine opportunity. A few simple questions can help everyone start on the right footing.

And if you have encountered an approach that does not quite add up, do feel free to get in touch to help verify. We have come across a few of these situations recently and may be able to help.

Sometimes the simplest questions are the most useful.

Warmest wishes,

Roop Chandwani
CEO | Mazards

Mazards Associates

• Roop Chandwani (CEO, founder)

• Devin Welch (CCO, sales)

References

1. Private Directors Association — Member Advisory: Director Alert on Recruiting & Impersonation Scams, 9 July 2026.

2. Biogen — Information on Fraudulent Job Postings. See also Roche — Identifying Fake Job Advertisements.

3. Association of Executive Search and Leadership Consultants — Candidate Bill of Rights, particularly the section on confidentiality.

4. UK National Protective Security Authority — Online Networking Guidance.

5. Association of Executive Search and Leadership Consultants — Recruitment Fraud Alert: What Clients and Candidates Should Know, September 2026.