Australian AML/CTF · Sector guide

AML for legal practices

A legal practice must assess the designated services it provides; its professional title alone does not determine every obligation.

General information only, not legal, compliance, or other professional advice. Does not confirm compliance.

Start with: Does AML regulation follow your service or your profession?

AUSTRAC has dedicated guidance for legal professionals and professional designated services. The professional-services guidance covers specified transaction activities, including certain work that directly advances a real-estate transaction. The scope question therefore concerns the service and facts, rather than a blanket rule for every legal matter. This guide is an entry point for a practice to organise that review. It does not decide whether a particular retainer is captured or resolve legal professional privilege. Read the current designated-service text and applicable law for those decisions.

Review a changing matterFollow the process from top to bottom. Instructions: Describe the work requested. Scope review: Check the relevant designated-service conditions. Information: Identify customer and privilege questions. Change: Revisit the assessment when the work changes.Instructions Scope review Information Change
  1. Instructions

    Describe the work requested.

  2. Scope review

    Check the relevant designated-service conditions.

  3. Information

    Identify customer and privilege questions.

  4. Change

    Revisit the assessment when the work changes.

An illustrative practice review follows enquiry, engagement, transaction planning, execution and completion. At each stage, describe what the practice does for the client and what information it receives. This can reveal a scope decision earlier than the movement of money. Keep the service analysis separate from a general client identity check. The suggested worksheet records the relevant activity, source and reviewer. It should not substitute a broad label such as commercial work for an explanation of the actual service being considered.

AUSTRAC’s professional-services guidance explains that planning and organising can include preparatory steps that directly advance the relevant outcome. Waiting for settlement or a transfer of money can therefore miss the start of the service. At the same time, a connection to a transaction is not sufficient by itself: general advice and ancillary work need to be distinguished from action that directly advances it.

For intake, describe the requested deliverable and what staff will do with it. Explaining possible structures, preparing documents to create a chosen structure, and acting on transaction instructions are different tasks to assess. Apply the relevant table 6 item and its conditions to each task. A single engagement can contain more than one kind of work.

In this fictional matter, a client first asks for an explanation of possible business structures. Later, the client selects a structure and asks the practice to prepare and arrange execution of its constituting documents. The file should show the revised instructions and the point at which staff begin acting on them. The original description general advice no longer describes all the work.

A proposed handover records the service item considered, the actual action, customer and relevant connected people, CDD status, and the reviewer’s decision about starting the work. Where another adviser is involved, record who performs which action. An introduction by a trusted professional does not establish that this practice’s own obligations have been met.

If staff identify a privilege question, they send the specific information and proposed disclosure to the appropriate reviewer. They do not treat an entire transactional file as privileged merely because a lawyer holds it. Scope, CDD and privilege are related questions, but one answer cannot replace the others.

A changed instruction needs a new service decisionFollow the process from top to bottom. Original advice: Record what the client first asked the practice to explain. Implementation request: Identify the new action that may directly advance a specified outcome. Scope and CDD review: Check the applicable item, start point and remaining requirements. Authorised handover: Record the decision and responsible person before the relevant action.Original advice Implementation request Scope and CDD review Authorised handover
  1. Original advice

    Record what the client first asked the practice to explain.

  2. Implementation request

    Identify the new action that may directly advance a specified outcome.

  3. Scope and CDD review

    Check the applicable item, start point and remaining requirements.

  4. Authorised handover

    Record the decision and responsible person before the relevant action.

Legal professional privilege and the duty of confidentiality are not the same. AUSTRAC explains that LPP protects only communications within the common-law doctrine; it does not cover everything a lawyer must keep confidential. Section 242(1) preserves the right to withhold privileged information. The reporting guidance also describes LPP forms in relevant circumstances. A practice therefore needs to identify the information and the basis of the claim, rather than mark the entire client file privileged because it belongs to a legal matter.

A useful internal handover identifies the service assessment, customer information, unresolved questions and responsible reviewer. It also states what change in the matter should trigger another review. This helps fee earners and support staff work from the same facts. Test the process with a fictional matter that changes scope midway through the engagement. The output should be a clear decision trail, not a claim that a template confirms compliance. The related program, CDD and reporting guides explain those requirements separately.

A practical instruction tells support staff which changes require a fresh review: a new entity, new representative, different transaction role or unexpected request to control assets. Staff should know where to record the change and who can decide its effect. They should not be expected to resolve a difficult statutory scope question from a checklist alone.

Test the process with a fictional file that changes between consultation and execution. Check whether the new instruction reaches the reviewer before the relevant work starts. Also check that customer-facing notes do not expose restricted reporting information. The process should support the practice’s legal assessment and record it clearly; it does not turn this guide into a legal opinion on a retainer.

Sources and scope

Sources checked on 2026-09-06. This page is not continuously updated. Check the linked legislation and AUSTRAC guidance for current requirements.

This page does not cover: A legal scope decision for a particular retainer; Every legal professional privilege exception.

Common AML/CTF terms