header-logo header-logo

22 May 2019
Issue: 7841 / Categories: Legal News , Fraud , Criminal , Profession
printer mail-detail

Principles post-Panama Papers

A set of ‘Panama Papers scandal’ guidelines for lawyers assisting clients with offshore companies has been published.

The ‘Report of the Task Force on the role of lawyers and international commercial structures’, was launched at an event in London this week by the International Bar Association (IBA) and Secretariat of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The task force was established in December 2016, after the Panama Papers scandal, where about 11 million electronic files from the Panama law firm Mossack Fonseca were publicly disclosed. This was followed in 2017 by the Paradise Papers scandal, the public disclosure of more than 13 million documents, many from the Bermuda law firm Appleby and associated service firms.

The task force explored whether lawyer-client confidentiality is being exploited to cover up unethical or illegal acts, and whether lawyers are hiding behind the ‘few bad apples’ excuse without looking at the overall regulatory structure. It also considered the extent to which lawyers are taking responsibility for their role in facilitating arms trafficking, corruption, mass drug addiction and terrorism financed by the transfer of illicit funds.

The report outlines eight principles to support lawyers in detecting, identifying and preventing illegal conduct in commercial transactions. Rather than duplicating existing guides or seeking to prescribe how lawyers should act in certain circumstances, it ‘focuses on high-level issues of principle that should assist governments in policy formulation and in guiding lawyers as to how they should conduct themselves, consistent with a lawyer’s underlying domestic legal and ethical obligations’.

On misuse of confidence and privilege (principle 2), for example, the report states legal professional privilege is fundamental but should not be used to ‘shield wrongdoers’ and lawyers ‘should give due and proper consideration to refraining from acting for a client’ if aware of, or with reasonable grounds to believe, ‘the main purpose of the retainer is to allow the client to be able to rely on the confidential nature of the lawyer–client relationship’. 

Issue: 7841 / Categories: Legal News , Fraud , Criminal , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll