The SRA has updated its sectoral risk assessment, sharpened its expectations on third-party litigation funding, and issued a warning notice on AI use – while the Legal Ombudsman has launched a new model for handling complaints, and the Law Society has quietly raised the bar on what CQS accreditation requires. Read individually, these look like separate updates. Read together, they point the same way: regulators are asking firms to show their working, not just state their intentions, across every part of practice – from source of funds checks and funding arrangements to complaints handling, AI oversight and conveyancing risk controls.
This issue walks through what’s changed, what it means in practice, and where to focus first.
This month's Compliance Lifeline contributors
The Legal Ombudsman’s new Model Complaints Resolution Procedure: what it means for your law firm
Read More »
We are here to help you stay ahead of the compliance curve
f there’s one thread running through this issue, it’s that “we have a policy for that” is no longer enough on its own – the SRA, the Law Society and LeO are all, in their own ways, asking firms to evidence that policies are followed, understood and kept current. That’s a heavier lift for compliance teams, but it’s also an opportunity: firms that get ahead of these changes now are the ones that won’t be scrambling when a file review, an audit or a client asks the same question a regulator already has.
As ever, if any of what you’ve read here raises questions about your own firm’s position – on AML, funding arrangements, complaints handling, AI governance or CQS – get in touch.
We’re happy to talk it through.