Scoping the AML Compliance Officer Role in Law Firms

Law firms across Australia are facing a critical decision as they prepare for AML/CTF obligations: how to structure the role of the AML Compliance Officer (AMLCO). The scope of this role can vary significantly depending on whether a firm chooses a centralised or decentralised model. Let's break down both approaches, their pros and challenges, and what firms need to consider when deciding how to manage AML responsibilities.

‍

Centralised Model (more common in mid-large firms)

In this model, most AML tasks are completed by a centralised compliance team that consists of the AMLCO plus analysts. The role typically sits within an existing risk and compliance function or the office of the General Counsel.

Pros:

- Greater consistency across processes

- Tighter controls

- Less administrative burden on fee earners

Challenges:

- Still requires some involvement from fee earners (as they know their clients best)

- Communication between compliance and legal teams needs to be tightly managed

‍

Decentralised Model (more common in smaller firms)

Here, fee earners and support staff handle the end-to-end CDD process and other aspects of client and matter intake, while the AMLCO takes on an oversight or escalation role. This approach allows firms to run a leaner compliance function, sometimes by appointing a partner as AMLCO rather than hiring a new specialist.

Pros:

- Cost efficiency, since no new headcount is created by leveraging existing staff

Challenges:

- AML tasks may be slower and inconsistent

- Fee earners are pulled away from billable work

- Training requirements are higher

- Many firms end up hiring compliance staff later to manage the workload

‍

In both models, the AMLCO remains ultimately accountable. They are responsible for AUSTRAC engagement, policies, reporting, and oversight.

‍