What's the most common AML training failing?

No evidence of ongoing or role-specific training, and no proof staff understood the material — just an attendance record.

How Law Firms Can Evidence AML Training

How law firms can evidence AML training

The SRA repeatedly identifies poor AML training records — including a lack of evidence of ongoing or role-specific training — as a recurring issue. Knowing what counts as adequate evidence helps you close that gap before a review.

Adequate AML training evidence is ongoing, role-specific, acknowledged, and ideally understood.

Ongoing, not annual

A single yearly session is rarely sufficient. Evidence that AML training is delivered on an ongoing basis — and refreshed when policies or risks change — shows the firm keeps knowledge current.

Role-specific coverage

Different teams face different AML risks. Show that higher-risk work — such as conveyancing and probate — received targeted training, rather than averaging everyone into one generic session.

Acknowledged and understood

Pair training with timestamped acknowledgement and, where it matters, comprehension tests. This evidences that staff received the training and understood it — not just that it was scheduled.

Organised and exportable

Keep records in one place, linked to the relevant policies, so you can show who completed what, when, and how it relates to the firm's obligations — and export it quickly when asked.

Reglo helps firms keep this evidence organised and audit-ready — humans approve every change. AI drafts and organises; your compliance team decides.

This guide is general information for compliance teams, not legal or regulatory advice. Always refer to the SRA's current guidance and take your own professional advice where needed.