For Mike Ross, Director and MLRO at Anderson Strathern, compliance should make sense to the people doing it. Unfortunately, he’s seen the compliance burden grow heavier in recent years - and, too often, less effective.

We caught up with Mike to discuss the findings from Legl’s ‘State of compliance 2025’ report, where 84% of firms have updated their AML processes in the past year but only 60% feel confident they’re keeping pace.

Mike’s view is straightforward: compliance should be practical, proportionate, and focused on what genuinely reduces risk.

Q: If you had to sum up the current state of compliance in a few words, what would you say?

A: Over-engineered and overly bureaucratic. We’re working with regulations that were never really designed for law firms and processes that often feel built for compliance specialists, not for fee-earners or clients.

My role - and I think every MLRO’s role - is to find the balance between staying compliant and staying commercially sensible. That balance matters, because compliance done for its own sake helps no one. 

The real goal is to do the right things, for the right reasons, in a way that makes sense to the people who have to live with them every day.

Q: You mentioned being honest with fee-earners about what’s working - or not - but keeping a united front with clients. Why draw that line?

A: Internally, honesty builds trust. If something feels unnecessary or overly cautious, I’ll say so - and then remind people we’re doing it because the law requires it. That realism goes a long way to helping people stay engaged.

Externally, it’s different. We’re here to help clients navigate the law, not complain about it. It’s unprofessional to moan to clients about regulation. They rely on us for calm, confident advice. The challenge is keeping both hats on - pragmatic internally, positive externally.

Q: More than half of firms in our survey have already acted on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act (ECCTA), and Companies House is introducing identity verification. How can firms prepare appropriately without overreacting?

A: Plan proportionately. Yes, the failure to prevent fraud offence raises the bar, and director verification will change onboarding for corporate clients. But not everything needs a wholesale rewrite on day one.

Start with risk and scope: what actually changes for your client base? Then work through your policies, training and controls in that order.

You don’t need to be the first firm to act. You just need to be sensible and able to explain your approach. The goal isn’t to move fast - it’s to move deliberately, with decisions you can defend.

Q: Everyone’s talking about AI in compliance. Where’s the real opportunity for firms?

A: First, separate AI from automation - they’re not the same thing.

A lot of what people call “AI” doesn’t need machine learning at all. It just needs good, rule-based automation to take away repetitive admin and standardise evidence. That’s where firms can make an immediate impact.

AI, on the other hand, should be used where judgment at scale actually adds value. If you skip that distinction, you end up adding cost and complexity without fixing the underlying work.

So the focus should be less on chasing buzzwords and more on identifying where technology genuinely improves efficiency and accuracy.

Q: Our survey found that 64% of firms list source of funds and wealth as top priorities, yet only 20% plan to automate them this year. Why the hesitation?

A: Because understanding has to come before automation.

If teams aren’t clear on what counts as sufficient evidence, or what “source of funds” really means in practice, automating the process just scales confusion. You’ll move faster, but you’ll make the same mistakes - only at volume.

The priority should be getting the fundamentals right first: definitions, thresholds, and internal consistency. Once those are in place, technology like Legl can help make the process quicker, more consistent, and auditable.

Otherwise, you just risk replacing one kind of inefficiency with another.

Q: Only 22% of firms told us their fee-earners and compliance teams truly collaborate. What helps change that?

A: Timing and tone make all the difference.

When fee-earners bring compliance in early, the conversation is about how to move forward. Bring them in late and it’s about why not - and that’s where frustration builds.

We also need to change how we talk to clients. If a lawyer says, “Compliance is making me ask for this,” they’ve already thrown compliance under the bus. It’s much better to say, “Here’s what we’ll need to move things forward.” That small shift in tone changes how clients perceive the process.

Collaboration isn’t about being friends - it’s about removing friction. And that’s easiest when fee-earners and compliance talk to each other, and when they use technology to automate manual processes during onboarding. 

This frees everyone up to focus on what genuinely requires their input.

Q: Eight in ten firms say compliance steps affect client satisfaction, and only 9% rate their onboarding as excellent. How do you reduce friction without losing rigour?

A: It starts with setting expectations. Clients don’t mind compliance if they understand what’s needed, when, and why. Problems usually arise when it feels disjointed or repetitive.

Offer options where you can - for example, how they provide documentation - and make sure they aren’t being asked for the same information twice. That’s where integrated tools can make a real difference.

You’ll never remove friction completely, but you should always be upfront about what’s required and respectful of clients’ time. 

Final thoughts

For Mike Ross, effective compliance starts with realism. It’s about applying the rules in a way that protects clients and makes sense for the firm. When that balance is right, compliance stops feeling like an obstacle and becomes part of good business.

“We all win when it’s done well. It protects clients, builds trust, and lets firms focus on what they’re really here to do.”

For a wider view of how firms across the UK are managing the same pressures, download Legl’s ‘State of compliance 2025’ report. 

‍