Vinciworks free guide: compliance training in a post CPD era

Print This Post

17 February 2016


Vinciworks200There seems to be a common misconception in the legal profession that the SRA’s changes to CPD hail the end of formal compliance training. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Compliance training on topics such as money laundering training, bribery, diversity, data protection etc. remains mandatory irrespective of any CPD changes.

The SRA has reiterated on numerous occasions that changes to CPD will have no impact on other mandatory training required by legislative or regulatory bodies; nor will it affect industry best practice. For example, in the SRA’s money laundering guidance:

We have recently changed our approach to continuing competence, deciding to remove the requirement for a certain number of hours of CPD and allowing firms to arrange appropriate training at their own discretion.

Anti-money laundering training and the policies that underpin it, remain a legal requirement as noted above, and firms should consider this as part of their continuing competence planning

VinciWorks has developed a free guide to the requirements and best practice for compliance training at law firms. It enables firms to verify that they are compliant with all laws and regulations.

The guide covers the training requirements stipulated in the following:

  • Outcomes Focused Regulation (OFR)
  • The SRA Handbook
  • The Lexcel accreditation standard (updated for v6)
  • Money Laundering Regulation 2007
  • UK Bribery Act 2010

In addition, the guide provides a full training plan for onboarding and refresher training.

Fill out the form here to receive the free guide.



Associate News is provided by Legal Futures Associates.
Find out about becoming an Associate



Legal Futures Blog

McKenzie Friends – a storm in a teapot

Legal Futures Conference 2011Photo by Jonathan Goldberg

If the recent furore about McKenzie Friend Marketplace shows anything, it is that the profession remains acutely sensitive to the apparent threat of competition by unregulated entrants into the legal landscape. But for an outside observer, the whole McKenzie Friend debate remains curiously overblown: if not a storm in a teacup, a storm at least in a teapot. For all the characteristic sturm und drang of the Law Society’s response to last year’s senior judiciary consultation, there was pretty widespread agreement among most respondents that McKenzie Friends are here to stay.

April 28th, 2017