Should AML and Conflicts sit together or separately?
Examining the pros and cons of merging AML and Conflicts teams into a single Business Acceptance Unit.
The Short Answer
For most mid-to-large UK law firms, sitting them together in a unified Business Acceptance team is the most efficient model. It prevents 'siloed' thinking where an AML analyst clears a client that the Conflicts team is about to block, or vice-versa.
The Argument for Unity
When they sit together, information flows better. An AML analyst might spot something in a corporate structure that is relevant to a conflict search. A unified team also provides a better experience for fee earners, who only have one point of contact for their new matter.
When Separation Makes Sense
In massive, global firms (the 'Magic Circle' or US-led firms), the complexity of Conflicts is so high that they often require their own dedicated department with a different reporting line, often directly to a Conflicts Partner or General Counsel.
The Bottom Line
Integration is better for culture and speed, while separation is better for extreme technical depth. For the average SRA-regulated firm, a 'joined-up' approach is almost always the right call.
Want to know more?
Guide to building a business acceptance function from a recruitment perspective
What should a law firm clarify before hiring AML and Conflicts professionals?
How much autonomy should AML and Conflicts professionals have?
How do you create progression in an AML and Conflicts team?’
What is the difference between an AML Analyst, Conflicts Analyst and Business Acceptance Analyst?
