header-logo header-logo

07 November 2025
Issue: 8138 / Categories: Legal News , Regulatory , Legal services , Fraud
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Law Society calls for clarity on AML

235051
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week

The Financial Conduct Authority is set to take over anti-money laundering (AML) oversight from the Solicitors Regulation Authority, part of a sweeping regulatory reform.

Evans cautions that such a shift risks diluting the nuanced understanding of the legal profession’s unique risks and responsibilities. He urges government and regulators to ensure the transition reduces compliance burdens, not deepens them, and pledges that the Law Society will engage vigorously to protect members as the new supervisory regime takes shape.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll