Howden, Hays, and Brown & Brown: what the story says about broker trust

The Howden/Hays/Brown & Brown story has been living rent-free in my head this week.

Read straight from the headlines, it almost feels like a movie: a founder sells his insurance firm to a large aggregator, and a few years later is alleged to be involved in a few hundred employees resigning en masse to join another company where he was appointed Vice Chair.

And that lift-out accusation isn’t happening in a vacuum. Multiple major firms—Aon, Marsh, and WTW (recently settled)—have filed lawsuits raising related allegations around tortious interference, restrictive covenants, and employee solicitation.

From a pure dollars-and-cents perspective, it’s not hard to see why these disputes show up. When firms trade at today’s multiples, the cost of litigation, settlements, or even putting entire teams on garden leave can look small next to overall enterprise value. Compare a 15× seller-adjusted EBITDA to a couple years of garden leave and some settlements, and the math starts to tilt.

But insurance brokerage and consulting is ultimately a trust business. We don’t just sell paper and a promise—we sell judgment, stewardship, and long-term relationships.

So here’s the question I keep coming back to:

Even if something can be defended as lawful or economically rational, is it ethical?

And would you want to work with—or buy from—a broker or consultant accused of growing by lifting out an entire operation from a competitor?

I'll watch the documentary on Netflix for sure.