The campaign against transferring regulation of anti-money laundering activity to a single body has grown, with more legal professional bodies attacking the government’s plan.

The Bar Council and Birmingham Law Society – one of the biggest regional societies – both said this week they have serious concerns about the Treasury proposal to create a single professional services supervisor. The role would be filled by the Financial Conduct Authority, moving AML handling away from the Solicitors Regulation Authority and effectively meaning that thousands of law firms are regulated by two entities.

Birmingham Law Society said in its response to the Treasury consultation that the new arrangements will cause confusion among consumers and place additional burdens on firms. It also pointed out the danger that the legal professional privilege of clients may be undermined by AML being regulated by a supervisor outside of the law.

Cary Whitmarsh, chair of the society’s professional regulation committee, said: ‘We think that the additional regulatory obligations will lead to increased costs of legal services for consumers that will have an adverse impact on the government’s growth plans. The committee is seriously concerned that these proposals will undermine the fundamental legal principle of legal professional privilege that may impact on a client’s ability to seek legal advice in the knowledge that what is discussed with his or her lawyer will not be disclosed.’

Read more

Last week, the Law Society of England and Wales condemned the plans as posing ‘major operational and strategic risks for the profession while offering no proven benefits’.

The Bar Council has now joined in with this opposition, saying the move to one new model for all professional service firms risks losing sector-specific expertise. It added that the current system of AML supervision being discharged by the Bar Standards Board is working well.

The bar's representative body added: ‘We also want to ensure the new regime does not impose disproportionate costs. We remain concerned at the limited consideration given to the question of fees and funding, and the lack of any reference to the need for such fees to be levied in a way which takes account of the risk profile of specific sectors and the degree to which their activities will require regulatory activity by the FCA.’