Even before the current outcomes-focused regulations came into force compliance was seen by many as a necessary evil. What firms are going to make of it with the new regulators out in force still remains to be seen.

I don’t think that law firms will find OFR easy in spite of the fact that it is supposed to give them more control and more of what they said they wanted. In fact, does OFR really give them such freedom?

How do you explain the results of a recent mini-survey? For a seminar we ran on compliance, and the opportunity to become an ABS, we carried out an investigation to see how many of the firms complied with those regulations which can be externally checked, such as website compliance and data registration.

It was shocking to note that out of the 40 firms who had signed up only three firms were completely compliant. Needless to say, when these figures were announced the pens and pencils came out with furious note taking burning holes in the notepaper.

We found that even large firms hadn’t got it right. Some firms appear to rely on their website creators - whether internal or outsourced - to deal with the appropriate regulations and this has turned out to be a risky business.

You would expect the larger firms to have the resources to employ specialists but my impression is that such so-called experts are in the job by default rather than willing enthusiasts for the subject. The owners let them get on with it. If the owners of the business do not have a good grasp of compliance how can they know about what they don’t know? And this is just one example of compliance where there is no choice.

So where is the opportunity in such a subject which is often cast to back office functions at a low level without the power to implement easily? Given that that there is a requirement to have a compliance officer for legal practice and compliance officer for finance and administration (no choice there by the way), there is an opportunity to make the firm more commercial in its outlook.

Such functions are only the same as those which already exist in the commercial world. Look at the composition of any commercial company board. They nearly always include financial and commercial directors (during a re-structuring process a partner once told me that the title operations director sounded like a surgical appointment in the NHS).

Taking on board the regulations should end in more profit as long as well-appointed appointees seize the opportunity to get things right with better operations management and financial understanding.

I don’t think that the majority of firms will cope as well as will be hoped unless the right people are appointed and they do not exist in a lot of firms. Many, partners or others, will be moved into the role as a required necessity to be seen to comply - not to move the firm on.

My suggestion is that more outsourcing or interim management would help the medium and small firms with what should be regarded as an investment not an expense. The outcome should be to recover perceived costs by better performance and more. Yet another demonstration of compliance working for us n’est ce pas?

Mike Gorick is associate director of The Compliance People Ltd