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?
How should a law firm structure an AML and Conflicts team?
What is the difference between an AML Analyst, Conflicts Analyst and Business Acceptance Analyst?
