6 Cons of Outsourcing Regulatory Monitoring to Legal Counsel

In the fast-paced payments industry, regulatory compliance is non-negotiable. Many companies turn to external legal counsel to manage regulatory monitoring, assuming it provides expertise and peace of mind. While outside counsel can offer valuable guidance, outsourcing compliance monitoring comes with significant drawbacks. Here are the six main cons compliance professionals should consider.

1. Cost Management

Outsourcing regulatory monitoring to legal counsel can be extremely expensive. Top-tier law firms often charge high fees, and billing structures are frequently unpredictable, making it difficult to forecast costs for ongoing monitoring or ad-hoc advice. For smaller compliance teams, repeated engagement with legal counsel can quickly strain budgets, limiting the ability to allocate resources to other critical compliance initiatives.

Key takeaway: High and unpredictable costs can make outsourcing less financially viable than internal solutions.

2. Expertise & Specialisation

While legal counsel brings broad regulatory knowledge, finding specialised expertise in payments-specific regulations like PSD2, PCI DSS, or AML/KYC is not always guaranteed. Global payments providers also need counsel familiar with multiple jurisdictions, which can be challenging to secure. Furthermore, regulators frequently update rules, and some law firms struggle to provide timely, actionable insights.

Key takeaway: Lack of specialised, up-to-date expertise can hinder effective compliance.

3. Responsiveness & Agility

Compliance teams often require real-time support, especially in a fast-moving industry like payments. Traditional law firms may have slow turnaround times, and limited availability to address urgent regulatory questions can delay decision-making. Relying solely on external counsel may leave compliance teams unable to respond quickly to evolving regulations.

Key takeaway: Outsourced legal monitoring can be less agile than in-house solutions, slowing operational response.

4. Quality & Consistency of Insights

External counsel may provide generic, boilerplate guidance that doesn’t fully align with your business operations. Advice often comes in fragmented formats, making it difficult to synthesize actionable steps. Additionally, legal language can be overly technical, while compliance teams need practical, operational guidance to implement effectively.

Key takeaway: Inconsistent or generic insights can reduce the effectiveness of compliance programs.

5. Integration with Internal Processes

Integrating external legal advice into internal compliance workflows is often labor-intensive. Compiling, tracking, and referencing counsel insights requires significant manual effort. Legal advice may exist in silos outside internal systems, making audits or historical review cumbersome. This disconnection can slow down reporting and decision-making processes.

Key takeaway: Poor integration increases administrative burden and reduces operational efficiency.

6. Scalability & Ongoing Monitoring

Many law firms operate on a reactive model, providing advice only when requested, rather than offering continuous monitoring. As a company grows or regulations evolve, scaling outsourced legal support can be cumbersome and expensive. This makes it difficult to maintain proactive compliance oversight at scale.

Key takeaway: Outsourced legal monitoring may not scale efficiently with business growth or regulatory complexity.

Outsourcing regulatory monitoring to legal counsel can seem like an attractive solution, but it comes with significant challenges - from cost and scalability to responsiveness and integration. Compliance teams in the payments industry must weigh these cons carefully and consider alternative solutions, such as in-house monitoring platforms or hybrid approaches that combine legal expertise with technology-driven efficiency.

‍

Is legal counsel causing a lag?

It’s time for a smarter approach. Download your handy 2 pager to discover how best practice teams bring the regulatory responsibility in-house to rescue costs and increase control.