This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Risks and threats of corruption and the legal profession: Survey 2010
Introduction A. About the survey B. Survey methodology C. About the authors Survey results A. Perceptions of the impact of corruption on the legal profession at home and abroad
1. PercePtionS of the imPact of corruPtion on the legal ProfeSSion at home 2. PercePtionS of the imPact of corruPtion on the legal ProfeSSion in neighbouring juriSdictionS
6 6 7 7 9 9 9
11 12 12 12 16 16 18
B. Risks associated with international bribery and corruption
1. Perceived imPact of corruPtion on foreign inveStment 2. buSineSS and comPetitive riSkS
C. Level of awareness of the international anti-corruption regulatory framework
1. awareneSS of international anti-corruPtion inStrumentS 2. awareneSS of national legiSlation with extraterritorial aPPlication
D. The role of local bar associations, law societies and law firms in addressing the challenge of corruption
1. bar aSSociationS and law SocietieS 2. law firmS
20 20 21 25 25 25 27 28 29
Conclusions and recommendations A. Summary of conclusions B. Recommendations Annex 1 Annex 2 Acknowledgements
foreign bribery? Chart 14 Where does dealing with corruption and foreign bribery risks rank within the priorities of your law firm? Chart 15 How responses to ‘where does dealing with corruption and foreign bribery risks rank within the priorities of your law firm’ are distributed with respect to the positions held by respondents Chart 16 Does your law firm have a clear and specific anti-corruption policy? 18 20 21 21 22 22 4 anti-corruPtion Strategy for the legal ProfeSSion . eg. foreign bribery? In your opinion. eg. foreign bribery? Do you know of any legal professionals in your jurisdiction who have been involved in international corruption offences. foreign bribery? Do you believe that you have lost business to other law firms or individual lawyers who are prepared to make illicit payments to government officials on behalf of or for the benefit of foreign companies/investors? Awareness of international conventions on corruption and bribery by region 9 Chart 2 10 Chart 3 10 Chart 4 11 Chart 5 12 Chart 6 13 Chart 7 14 Chart 8 14 16 17 Chart 9 Chart 10 Awareness of international conventions by state parties Chart 11 How responses to ‘please select the international anti-corruption instruments you are familiar with’ are distributed with the practice area of respondents Chart 12 Does your bar association or law society provide specific anti-corruption guidelines for legal professionals? Chart 13 Does your bar association or law society guidelines address specifically the issue of international corruption. eg. eg. what proportion of legal professionals in your jurisdiction would be willing to participate or facilitate international transactions that they recognise as corrupt.List of Charts and Boxes Charts Chart 1 Do you think corruption is an issue in the legal profession in your jurisdiction? (by regions) Do you think corruption is an issue in the legal profession in your jurisdiction? (by countries) Do you think corruption is an issue in the legal profession in your jurisdiction? (by age) Do you think corruption is an issue in the legal profession in neighbouring jurisdictions? Have you ever been approached to act as an agent or middleman in a transaction that could reasonably be suspected to involve international corruption.
Chart 17 How responses to ‘does your law firm have a clear and specific anti-corruption policy’ are distributed with respect to the positions held by respondents in law firms Chart 18 Approximately what proportion of your foreign clients require your firm to certify anti-corruption compliance. age and position in their firms International anti-corruption instruments Extraterritorial application of the offence of bribing a foreign public official Awareness and age 6 7 15 18 19 riSkS and threatS of corruPtion and the legal ProfeSSion: Survey 2010 5 . FCPA compliance? Chart 19 Has your firm been subject to anti-corruption or anti-money laundering due diligence conducted by foreign clients? 23 23 24 Boxes Box 1 Box 2 Box 3 Box 4 Box 5 Major findings Distribution of respondents by geographical region. eg.
• Youngerrespondents(aged20to30years)were.Nearlyathirdofrespondentssaidalegalprofessional theyknowhasbeeninvolvedininternationalcorruptionoffences. • Morethanafifthofrespondentssaidtheyhaveormayhavebeenapproachedtoactasanagentormiddlemaninatransaction thatcouldreasonablybesuspectedtoinvolveinternationalcorruption.onlyathirdsaidthatsuchguidancespecificallyaddressestheissueofinternationalcorruption. About the survey In April 2010. • Nearly30percentofrespondentssaidtheyhadlostbusinesstocorruptlawfirmsorindividualswhohaveengagedin internationalbriberyandcorruption. • Morethantwo-thirdsofrespondentssaidtheirlawfirmshadnotbeensubjecttoanti-corruptionoranti-moneylaunderingdue diligenceconductedbyforeignclients. It includes international legal instruments and national anti-corruption legislation that applies to corruption cases both at home and abroad.while30percentwereawareoftheUK BriberyActanditsscope. a project focusing on the role lawyers play in fighting corruption in international business transactions and the impact on the legal practice of international anti-corruption instruments and associated implementing national legislation with extraterritorial application. • Thelevelofawarenessoftheexistenceofanti-corruptionextraterritoriallegislationishigherthanthatoftheinternationallegal instruments:60percentofsurveyrespondentswereawareoftheFCPAanditsscope.LatinAmericaand. the International Bar Association (IBA). for example.suchastheOECDAnti-BriberyConventionandtheUNConventionagainstCorruption.Theproportionwas evenhigher–over70percent–inthefollowingregions:CIS.BalticStatesandEasternEurope. • Only43percentofrespondentsrecognisedthattheirbarassociationsprovidesomekindofanti-corruptionguidanceforlegal practitioners. • Atotalof42percentofrespondentsagreedthatnationalanti-corruptionlawsandregulationswereeffectiveinpreventing bothinboundandoutboundinternationalcorruptioncomparedtofiveyearsago. many lawyers remain unaware of the implications of this international anti-corruption regulatory framework on both their legal practice and on the legal profession. The global survey was designed as part of the Anti-Corruption Strategy for the Legal Profession. Canada. Its objectives are: to explore the level of awareness of the risks of corruption. To gain a better understanding of the possible risks the legal profession faces in this ever-developing international anti-corruption regulatory environment. their involvement as intermediaries in corrupt transactions that would leave them exposed to possible criminal liability. and to examine the role bar associations. • Nearly40percentofrespondentshadneverheardofthemajorinternationalinstrumentsthatmakeuptheinternationalanticorruptionregulatoryframework.Ofthese. law societies and law firms have in ensuring the legal profession is equipped to engage effectively in the international fight against corruption. launched the Anti-Corruption Strategy for the Legal Profession. to investigate the legal profession’s awareness of the tools available to mitigate these risks.onaverage.lessawareofinternationalanti-corruptionlawsandnational legislationthanolderrespondents. A powerful and developed international regulatory framework to combat corruption in all its forms is now in place. The results of this survey were launched at the 2010 IBA Annual Conference in Vancouver. 6 anti-corruPtion Strategy for the legal ProfeSSion . • Lessthan40percentofrespondentssaidanti-corruptionwasapriorityattheirlawfirmandjustunderathirdsaidthattheir firmsdonothaveaclearandspecificanti-corruptionpolicy.Introduction A. an exploratory survey was conducted among IBA members. lawyers may be at risk of violating this framework by. Unfortunately.1 As a consequence. in cooperation with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). box 1 – major findingS • Nearlyhalfofallrespondentsstatedcorruptionwasanissueinthelegalprofessionintheirownjurisdiction.Africa.
age and PoSition in their firmS Number of respondents 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31 and above No respondents Percentage of respondents by positions in the law firm Percentage of respondents by age Age 20-30 Age 31-40 Partner Associate Other 67% 18% 15% Age 41-50 Age 51-60 Age 61 and over 11% 29% 25% 21% 14% Number of responses 1-5 Jurisdictions Albania. Argentina.KyrgyzRepublic.Barbados.Uganda.Zimbabwe.Syria.Yemen.Singapore.Oman.SouthKorea.SouthAfrica.Peru.UnitedStates.Italy.Taiwan.Panama. UnitedArabEmirates.Finland.India.Zambia. Chile.BosniaandHerzegovina.Ethiopia.Liechtenstein. Israel.Uruguay.Brazil.Norway. Macedonia.Kenya.Poland.Ukraine.Slovakia.UnitedKingdom.Paraguay.Germany.Romania. Qatar. Turkey.Ireland.CostaRica.CzechRepublic.Mexico.Honduras.Hungary. Switzerland.Nicaragua.Colombia.Lebanon.Belgium. HongKong.Venezuela.Latvia.Cyprus.Georgia. China.Australia.Lithuania.Spain.Nigeria.El Salvador.Nepal.Pakistan.Ghana.Iran. Bulgaria.CaymanIslands.Moldova.Bolivia.Thailand.Netherlands.Egypt.Denmark.Kosovo.Portugal. 6-10 11-20 21-30 31andabove riSkS and threatS of corruPtion and the legal ProfeSSion: Survey 2010 7 .box 2 – diStribution of reSPondentS by geograPhical region.Malaysia.Guatemala.Cambodia.SriLanka.Azerbaijan.Croatia.Algeria.Japan.Tanzania.Austria.Sweden.Slovenia.France.Russia.Canada.NewZealand.
Survey methodology The survey was designed with the assistance of anti-corruption experts including officers and members of the IBA Anti-Corruption Committee and OECD and UNODC officials. 642 professionals from 95 jurisdictions participated. OECD and UNODC do not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accept no responsibility for any consequences of their use. including the States Party to the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). public law. The IBA. communication and technology. Notes 1 In this report.B. the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption. financial services. facilitation payments. About the authors The survey and this report were prepared by the IBA. we use the maximum number of responses available for each question. the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). real estate. the OECD. corporate law. criminal law. only 574 of these completed it in full. and Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union. The term ‘country’ or ‘jurisdiction’ does not imply any judgment by the OECD or the UN as to the legal or other status of any territorial entity. In total. among other potentially criminal conduct. maritime and aviation. 2 A common international corruption scenario which has an impact on the legal community involves a company approaching a law firm or lawyer to act as agent or middleman in a corrupt transaction that crosses borders in some manner and which directly or indirectly involves government officials.3 a list of the countries in each geographical region used in this report is given in Annex I. international sales. 3 Of the 642 private practitioners who started the survey. The respondents represented members of the legal profession working in private practice in the following areas: practice groups. US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and UK Bribery Act (which is yet to come into force) • Effectiveness of national laws and regulations to prevent corruption • Level of understanding that legal professionals have about their role in the prevention of international corruption2 • Vulnerability of the legal profession to international bribery and corruption in their jurisdiction and in neighbouring jurisdictions • Measures taken by local bar associations to tackle corruption The survey represents a first attempt to shed light on the above issues. interpretations and conclusions expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the IBA. It assessed legal professionals’ views on a number of important issues. In the analysis that follows. energy. C. environment. franchising and product law. This corruption may take the form of bribery. including: • Perceptions of the risks of corruption in their own jurisdiction • Awareness of the international and domestic instruments pertaining to transnational bribery and their implications for the legal profession • Awareness of the extraterritorial application of some domestic anti-corruption legislation eg. natural resources and infrastructure law. the Inter-American Convention against Corruption (IACAC). fraud. The complete questionnaire can be viewed online at http://tinyurl. dispute resolution. the international anti-corruption regulatory framework is used to refer to the following body of international law relating to anti-corruption: the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (OECD Anti-Bribery Convention). and taxation. Survey respondents were invited to answer questions online between 15 June and 5 July 2010. the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption and the Council of Europe Civil Law Convention on Corruption. given that the sample of respondents is not statistically representative of the countries covered by the survey. intellectual property. while care has to be taken when analysing the results. with input from the OECD and the UNODC.com/ACStrategy. money laundering. 8 anti-corruPtion Strategy for the legal ProfeSSion . The findings. the UNODC. or their member countries.
Perceptions of the impact of corruption on the legal profession at home Survey respondents were asked whether corruption is an issue in the legal profession in their own jurisdiction. chart 1 – do you think corruPtion iS an iSSue in the legal ProfeSSion in your juriSdiction? CIS Baltic States and Eastern Europe Latin America Africa Asia w/o Hong Kong and Singapore Middle East Yes UNCAC Parties EU w/o Nordic countries Asia European Union OECD Convention Parties USA and Canada Nordic countries Australasia 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Note: Respondents could answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’. this survey was organised to address the following four subjects: • The legal profession’s perception of the impact of corruption on their profession at home and abroad (Section A of the report) • Perceptions of the risks associated with international corruption for the legal profession (Section B) • Levels of awareness of the international anticorruption regulatory framework that exists to address these risks (Section C) • The role which local bar associations. lawyers often remain unaware of these risks and threats. Perceptions of the impact of corruption on the legal profession at home and abroad 1. In recognition of this lack of awareness. Each poses an array of new opportunities for lawyers.Survey results In the globalised economy of the early 21st century. Chart 1 represents the affirmative responses received. which are grouped by world regions. Lawyers’ involvement in these transactions exposes them to the risks and threats of international corruption. law societies and law firms play in addressing the challenge of corruption in the legal profession (Section D) A. however. but also challenges. riSkS and threatS of corruPtion and the legal ProfeSSion: Survey 2010 9 . Unfortunately. an uncountable number of international business transactions take place every day.
the less likely they were to agree that corruption is an issue in the legal profession in their jurisdiction. Moldova. Chart 3 shows the perception of corruption in the legal profession of the respondent’s jurisdiction by age group. According to survey results.Nearly half of all respondents recognised corruption to be an issue affecting the legal profession in their own jurisdiction. the older the respondent. However. Kyrgyz Republic. Azerbaijan. 10 anti-corruPtion Strategy for the legal ProfeSSion . only 16 per cent of respondents from Australasia saw corruption as an issue. responses varied significantly from region to region. versus nearly 90 per cent of respondents from the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) region. Countries with three or fewer respondents have been excluded from the chart. For example. which includes Ukraine. Chart 2 shows the results in selected jurisdictions: chart 2 – do you think corruPtion iS an iSSue in the legal ProfeSSion in your juriSdiction? Germany Spain Singapore Poland Malta Finland Belgium Australia Sweden Norway France New Zealand Chile The Netherland Switzerland Hong Kong Cyprus Canada Uruguay Luxembourg Japan Denmark 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes Pakistan China Guatemala Ukraine Peru Colombia Argentina Russia Mexico Nigeria Portugal Costa Rica Austria India El Salvador Brazil Italy South Africa United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Note: Respondents could answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’. and Russia. chart 3 – do you think corruPtion iS an iSSue in the legal ProfeSSion in your juriSdiction? 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% Age 20-30 Age 31-40 Age 41-50 Age 51-60 Yes Note: Respondents could answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
legal professionals may be exposed to instances of corruption outside their own jurisdiction. Perceptions of the impact of corruption on the legal profession in neighbouring jurisdictions Due to the growth in international transactions.2. As a result. clients increasingly rely on local counsel for advice on foreign legislation and for representation in international business transactions. The survey therefore asked participants whether corruption was an issue in the legal profession in neighbouring jurisdictions. chart 4 – do you think corruPtion iS an iSSue in the legal ProfeSSion in neighbouring juriSdictionS? CIS Asia Asia w/o Hong Kong and Singapore Latin America Baltic States and Eastern Europe UNCAC Parties Middle East USA and Canada OECD Convention Parties EU w/o Nordic countries European Union Australasia Africa Nordic countries Yes No I don’t know 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% riSkS and threatS of corruPtion and the legal ProfeSSion: Survey 2010 11 . Responses to this question are shown in Chart 4.
‘very likely’ or ‘likely’. On a regional level. but refused No Maybe Prefer not to answer 12 anti-corruPtion Strategy for the legal ProfeSSion . Ukraine (80 per cent) and Nigeria (91 per cent) responded ‘certainly’. emerging economies such as Russia (60 per cent). 56 per cent of survey respondents stated that corruption was a problem in a neighbouring jurisdiction. said corruption was a problem in neighbouring jurisdictions. Mexico (66. India (62. agents or representatives of 2. Business and competitive risks Lawyers may sometimes be faced with a situation where their clients instruct them to act in a transaction that could involve possible corruption. Conclusion Roughly half of all respondents perceive corruption to be an issue in the legal profession in both their home and in neighbouring jurisdictions. This was the case in Sweden and Switzerland (100 per cent). it runs the risk of discouraging important foreign investment. The survey therefore asked participants whether refusing to pay bribes might reduce the chances of foreign companies or investors of conducting business in their country. Africa and Asia responded ‘I do not know’.5 per cent). Denmark and Spain (85 per cent). foreign bribery? CIS Baltic States and Eastern Europe USA and Canada Africa UNCAC Parties Latin America OECD Convention Parties Australasia Nordic countries Middle East European Union Asia w/o Hong Kong and Singapore Asia 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes Yes. and the US and the UK (84 per cent).7 per cent). Perceived impact of corruption on foreign investment If a jurisdiction is associated with bribery and corruption. compared to roughly 25 per cent in Nordic countries. Respondents were asked whether they had been approached to act in a transaction that could reasonably be suspected to involve international corruption. In response to the above question.4 per cent).In all. Canada and Norway (95 per cent). Chart 5 below illustrates the results by world regions chart 5 – have you ever been aPProached to act aS an agent or middleman in a tranSaction that could reaSonably be SuSPected to involve international corruPtion. Given the role legal professionals often play in international business transactions – acting in many occasions as intermediaries. however. The majority of respondents in Australasia. foreign investors – they have a special insight into the perceived impact of corruption on foreign investment. for example. Risks associated with international bribery and corruption 1. responses varied significantly.6 per cent). Hong Kong (86. Venezuela (78 per cent). Nearly 90 per cent of respondents from the CIS region. Respondents from more advanced economies tended to respond ‘unlikely’ or ‘definitely not’ to the question. B. eg. China (71.
such as Australasia. chart 6 – in your oPinion. The responses by geographic region are set out in Chart 6. most survey respondents said they had never been approached to act as an agent or middleman in a transaction that could reasonably be suspected to involve international corruption. In contrast. However. Respondents were also asked whether they knew of any legal professionals in their home jurisdiction who have been involved in international corruption. it is interesting to note that one in five respondents answered ‘yes’. riSkS and threatS of corruPtion and the legal ProfeSSion: Survey 2010 13 . eg. the EU and the USA and Canada. The survey also gathered the opinion of participants as to what proportion of legal professionals in their jurisdiction would be willing to participate or facilitate international transactions that they recognise as corrupt. what ProPortion of legal ProfeSSionalS in your juriSdiction would be willing to ParticiPate or facilitate international tranSactionS that they recogniSe aS corruPt. felt that more than half of lawyers in their jurisdiction would engage in such behaviour.5 per cent of respondents in more developed regions.In general. This response alerts us to the unfortunate fact that lawyers are indeed approached to act as agents/ middlemen in transactions that could reasonably be suspected to involve international corruption. such as foreign bribery. Chart 7 shows the results by geographical region for those who answered in the affirmative. ‘yes but refused’ and ‘maybe’ to this question. less than 1. foreign bribery? Australasia Nordic countries USA and Canada Asia OECD Convention Parties UNCAC Parties Middle East European Union Asia w/o Hong Kong and Singapore CIS Africa Latin America Baltic States and Eastern Europe 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% More than 75% 50%-75% 25%-50% Less than 25 % Exactly 0% Approximately 28 per cent of respondents from Africa and CIS countries believed that more than half of lawyers in their jurisdiction would knowingly engage in transactions that could be corrupt.
57. For instance. Chart 8 shows the results by geographical region. Germany. 50 per cent of respondents from South Korea. Responses to this question help illustrate the chart 8 – do you believe that you have loSt buSineSS to other law firmS or individual lawyerS who are PrePared to make illicit PaymentS to government officialS on behalf or for the benefit of foreign comPanieS/inveStorS? CIS Baltic States and Eastern Europe Latin America Africa Asia w/o Hong Kong and Singapore Middle East UNCAC Parties Asia OECD Convention Parties European Union USA and Canada Australasia Nordic countries 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Yes Note: Respondents could answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’. the percentage of respondents. In contrast. how do these corrupt acts potentially affect one’s ability to compete in the legal profession? Survey respondents were asked whether they believed they had lost business to other law firms or individual lawyers who were prepared to make illicit payments to government officials on behalf or for the benefit of foreign companies/investors. the Netherlands and New Zealand were aware of any lawyer in their jurisdiction who had been involved in international corruption. again.1 per cent from Russia. eg. Finland. Denmark. In Chart 7. So.3 per cent from Argentina. foreign bribery? CIS Baltic States and Eastern Europe Latin America Africa UNCAC Parties Asia w/o Hong Kong and Singapore OECD Convention Parties European Union Asia USA and Canada Nordic countries Middle East Australasia 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Yes Note: Respondents could answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Canada.8 per cent from Peru. 53.6 per cent from Kenya and 81. The overall results show that nearly a third of all respondents knew of other legal professionals who have been involved in international corruption offences. less than 20 per cent of respondents from Australia. answered in the affirmative to the question. from developing or emerging economies were more likely to note they knew of other legal professionals who have engaged in corrupt activities than those from developed economies. 14 anti-corruPtion Strategy for the legal ProfeSSion .chart 7 – do you know of any legal ProfeSSionalS in your juriSdiction who have been involved in international corruPtion offenceS. 66.
detect.Thetwomaininstrumentsarethe ConventionontheProtectionoftheEuropeanCommunities’FinancialInterestsandtheConventionagainstCorruptionInvolving EuropeanOfficialsorOfficialsofMemberStatesoftheEuropeanUnion. european union instruments on corruption TheEUhasestablisheditsanti-corruptionpolicyinArticle29oftheTreatyonEuropeanUnion.Phase 1evaluatestheadequacyofacountry’slegislationtoimplementtheConvention. some familiar patterns were observed.theCriminalLawConventioncriminalises corruptconductandpromotesinternationalcooperationwithrespecttocorruption.interalia.thetermsofreferenceoftheMechanismfor theReviewofImplementationoftheUNCACwereadopted. Colombian. For instance.InNovember2009.Todaythereare 140signatoriesand146countriesarepartytotheconvention. In all.punishanderadicatecorruptionandto promote.Asoftoday.internationalcooperationandasset recovery.Itaims.Sofar33Africancountrieshave ratifiedtheConvention. ten per cent in Australia.Itisthefirstandonlyinternationalanti-corruptioninstrumentfocusedonthe ‘supplyside’ofthebriberytransaction.andonlygloballegalframeworkagainst corruption. oecd convention TheOECDAnti-BriberyConvention(officiallyOECDConventiononCombatingBriberyofForeignPublicOfficialsinInternational BusinessTransactions)establisheslegallybindingstandardstocriminalisebriberyofforeignpublicofficialsininternationalbusiness transactionsandprovidesforahostofrelatedmeasuresthatmakethiseffective.Itrepresentsregional consensusonwhatAfricanstatesshoulddointheareasofprevention.TheimplementationofbothconventionsismonitoredbyGRECO:theGroupofStates AgainstCorruption. almost 30 per cent of all respondents answered in the affirmative.Afollow-upmechanismwasadoptedinJune2001undertheSpanishAcronymMESICIC. in more developed economies.Theconventionwassignedon17December 1997andcameintoforceon15February1999.Atpresent32countriesin theAmericasarepartiestothisConvention.Thesewerethefirstattemptstodefinecommon internationalrulesinthefieldofcivilandcriminallawoncorruptioninEurope.protectingwhistleblowersandimproving communicationbetweenpublicofficialsandlawenforcementauthorities.TheConventionprovidesforathoroughmonitoringmechanismcomprisingthreephases. four per cent of respondents in New Zealand. african union convention TheAfricanUnionConventiononPreventingandCombatingCorruptionwasadoptedon11July2003.Itobligesstatepartiestoimplementawiderangeofanti-corruptionmeasuresincludingmeasuresaimedatpreventing andcriminalisingcorruptionrelatedactivities.TheConventioncoversawiderangeofoffencesincludingbribery(domesticorforeign). providesforcompensationtobepaidfordamagesresultingfromactsofcorruption.TheCouncilofEuropeCriminalLawConventiononCorruptionadoptedon4November 1998andthecorrespondingCivilLawConventionadoptedexactlyoneyearlater. impact of corruption on competition in the legal services market. such as in the Nordic region. 15 riSkS and threatS of corruPtion and the legal ProfeSSion: Survey 2010 . 5.criminalisation. Indian and Venezuelan respondents and 34 per cent of Russian respondents thought that they had lost business to other law firms or individuals who were prepared to assist foreign clients to make illicit payments to government officials in their own jurisdiction. 55 per cent of Argentinean.topromoteandstrengthenthe developmentbyeachofthepartiesofthemechanismsneededtoprevent.TheConvention’soversightmechanismsprovideforacomprehensivesystemofinter-statemonitoringandcompliance assessments.box 3 – international anti-corruPtion inStrumentS uncac TheUnitedNationsConventionagainstCorruption(UNCAC)isthemostcomprehensive. less than five per cent of respondents believed that they had lost business to other law firms/individuals because of corruption.3 per cent in Canada and Chile.CountriesthathavesignedtheConventionarerequiredtoputinplacelegislationthatcriminalisestheactof bribingaforeignpublicofficial. and 17 per cent in the UK and Spain answered ‘yes’ to the question as well. Conversely.inparticular. at the regional level.the32OECDmembercountriesandsixnon-membercountrieshaveadopted thisConvention. Brazilian.Thenewlyadopted2009Recommendation onFurtherCombatingBriberyofForeignPublicOfficialsinInternationalBusinessTransactionsanditsAnnexesstrengthenthelegal frameworkoftheConventionwithnewprovisionsforcombatingfacilitationpayments.WhiletheCivilLawConvention. inter-american convention TheInter-AmericanConventionAgainstCorruption(IACAC)wasadoptedbythemembercountriesoftheOrganizationof AmericanStateson29March1996andcameintoforceon6March1997. However.facilitateandregulatecooperationamongtheStatesPartiestoensuretheeffectivenessofanti-corruptionmeasuresand actions.Afollow-upmechanismisprovidedforinArticle22.BoththeConventionshavebeensignedby 47COEstatesandsixnon-memberstates.Article16specificallydealswithbriberyofforeignpublicofficials.Phase3focusesonenforcementoftheConvention. council of europe conventions on corruption Therearetwoconventionsinthisregard. over 70 per cent of Ukrainian and Peruvian respondents. Similarly.whilePhase2assesseswhetheracountryis applyingthislegislationeffectively.
Chart 9 represents the choices made by participants by region. The overall and regional results show that the majority of respondents selected ‘none of the above’. Respondents recognised some of the instruments. A last available choice was ‘none of the above’. Awareness of international anti-corruption instruments International corruption remains a major threat to the integrity and health of the legal profession in several parts of the world. There is also the view that international corruption negatively affects the ability to compete for business in the legal profession. One of the biggest obstacles to confronting this issue is the low level of awareness of the international anti-corruption regulatory framework that exists to address these risks. More than 40 per cent of respondents in developed countries such as Denmark. chart 9 – awareneSS of international conventionS on corruPtion and bribery by region Global Asia CIS Australasia Baltic States and Eastern Europe UNCAC Convention Middle East OECD Convention Inter-American Convention African Union Convention European Union Council of Europe Conventions (Civ and Crim) European Union Instruments Latin America None of the above Africa USA and Canada Nordic countries 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 16 anti-corruPtion Strategy for the legal ProfeSSion . Canada. These results demonstrate the lack of awareness among legal professionals of the main international anti-corruption instruments and. C. particularly the OECD (38.Conclusion Respondents recognise that a significant number of lawyers are approached to act as an agent or middleman in a transaction that could reasonably be suspected to involve international corruption. This framework includes international anticorruption instruments and associated national legislation with extraterritorial application. which could affect legal professionals. of the provisions in these instruments that concern the liability of intermediaries in international business transactions. To further illustrate the real lack of awareness of these instruments. even in developed economies. and Japan were not familiar with any instrument. Nearly 40 per cent of respondents answered ‘none of the above’ when asked if they were aware of any of the international instruments included in the survey. the survey team cross-tabulated countries by the Conventions they are party to. Level of awareness of the international anti-corruption regulatory framework 1. Given this situation.7 per cent) conventions. consequently. The outcome is equally alarming in terms of lack of awareness: more than half of all respondents were unaware of these instruments despite their jurisdiction being a party. respondents were questioned on their awareness of the various international instruments on anti-corruption. The survey listed the instruments described in Box 2 and participants were asked to select the ones with which they were familiar with. Germany. although in a very modest proportion.5 per cent) and UN (35. a result that increased to more than 70 per cent for participants in New Zealand and Hong Kong.
� Chart 11 shows the percentage of respondents in these sectors who said they had no knowledge of any of these international anticorruption instruments. with a special focus on the energy and environmental.chart 10 – awareneSS of international conventionS by State PartieS Inter-American Convention Parties Awareness of Inter-American Convention African Union Convention Parties Awareness of African Union Convention Aware Unaware 32% 68% Aware Unaware 37% 63% UNCAC Convention Countries Awareness of UNCAC OECD Convention Parties Awareness of OECD Convention Aware Unaware 37% 63% Aware Unaware 45% 55% The survey team also cross-tabulated survey results by the practice area of respondents. and real estate. riSkS and threatS of corruPtion and the legal ProfeSSion: Survey 2010 17 . according to Transparency International’s Bribe Payers’ Index. These sectors have been identified as particularly prone to the risks of international bribery and corruption. infrastructure and construction. which ranks 22 leading international and regional exporting countries by the tendency of their firms to bribe abroad.
AsofDecember2009therehavebeen138convictionsofnaturalpersonsand49convictionsoflegalpersonsin13StatesParties totheAnti-BriberyConvention.acompanymaybeconsideredanationalifitisincorporated. both of which have extraterritorial applicability. Awareness of national legislation with extraterritorial application The extraterritorial application of national legislation dealing with international corruption is an important element of the global anticorruption regulatory framework that concerns lawyers involved in international transactions.listedonastockexchangeorhasitsseatof operationsinthatParty.Itisthereforeimportantthatallpartiestoaninternationalbusinesstransactionareawareofthescopeof theseoffences. while over 70 per cent of respondents were unaware of the UK Bribery Act and its scope.andcanadvisetheirclientsaccordingly. 40 per cent of survey respondents were unaware of the FCPA and its scope.anddependingonthe lawofaStateParty. This gives rise to extraterritorial or long arm jurisdiction. In all. Some domestic laws extend their anti-corruption jurisdiction beyond national boundaries. PursuanttoArticle4.Inaddition.inaccordancewiththesameprinciples.chart 11 – how reSPonSeS to ’PleaSe Select the international anti-corruPtion inStrumentS you are familiar with’ are diStributed with the Practice area of reSPondentS Real Estate Energy and Environment Unaware Infrastructure and Construction 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 2.Theseformsofjurisdictionareknownasterritorialandnationality jurisdictionrespectively.andallexceptoneStatePartyhavefullorpartialjurisdictionovertheirnationalswhobribe foreignpublicofficialsabroad. the ramifications of which have been wide-ranging and included legal practitioners (see Box 4).StatesPartiesthathavejurisdictionoveroffences committedabroadbytheirnationalsmusthavesuchjurisdictionforthebriberyofforeignpublicofficialswhencommittedabroad bytheirnationals. Survey respondents were asked about their awareness of two sample pieces of national legislation: the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the UK Bribery Act.all38StatesPartiestotheOECDAnti-BriberyConventionhaveterritorialjurisdictionovertheoffenceof briberyofforeignpublicofficials. This means that lawyers involved in international transactions that include the bribery of foreign public officials can be affected by these laws.ManyStatesPartiescanattributenationalitytocompaniesforthispurpose. 18 anti-corruPtion Strategy for the legal ProfeSSion . box 4 – extraterritorial aPPlication of the offence of bribing a foreign Public official Article4oftheOECDAnti-BriberyConventionrequiresStatesPartiestoexercisejurisdictionovercasesofbribingaforeign publicofficialthattakeplaceinwholeorinpartintheirterritories.Theincreasedmomentuminanti-briberyenforcementactionsagainstindividualsandcompanies meanstherewillbeincreasinginstancesoftheextraterritorialapplicationofanti-briberylawstonaturalandlegalpersonsengaging ininternationalbusinesstransactions.
85. all respondents from the US. A total of 42 per cent of respondents believed that such laws and regulations were ineffective in preventing inbound and outbound international corruption. Similarly. At a more disaggregated level. Survey results showed that younger respondents (aged 20-30) showed less awareness of international anti-corruption laws and national legislation than more senior respondents (see Box 5).3 per cent from Nigeria. for example. 76.5 per cent of respondents opined that laws and regulations were effective in preventing outbound corruption and 78. No respondent in Germany had the opinion that laws have not been effective during the last five years. 71.9 per cent from Argentina. in countries where major foreign bribery cases have been prosecuted. ie.9 per cent had the same perception regarding inbound corruption. were aware of the FCPA. foreign bribery? Are you aware of the existence and scope of the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act? No 41 years and over 20-30 years No 41 years and over 20-30 years 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Are you aware of the existence and scope of the United Kingdom Bribery Act? Are you aware of the long arm jurisdiction. of overseas laws such as the United States FCPA or UK Bribery Act? No 41 years and over 20-30 years No 41 years and over 20-30 years 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% riSkS and threatS of corruPtion and the legal ProfeSSion: Survey 2010 19 .4 per cent from China.7 per cent from Russia and India. where companies such as Siemens. All respondents also confirmed their knowledge of the extraterritorial application of this legislation. Daimler. eg. 70 per cent from Colombia and 60 per cent from South Africa were of the opinion that domestic laws were ineffective in preventing both flows of corruption. It is also of noteworthy that. awareness of rules and laws against international corruption not only varied according to geographical location but also according to the age of the respondent. which has actively enforced the FCPA and has the greatest number of prosecutions for bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions. all of the respondents from Venezuela. the cross border reach. Finally. Deutsche Bahn and MAN have been the subject of much-publicised foreign bribery cases. the majority of respondents found the domestic legislative framework to be effective.Respondents were also asked whether they believed that national anti-corruption laws and regulations were effective in preventing both inbound and outbound corruption compared to five years ago. box 5 – awareneSS and age Are you aware of your national laws and regulations on international corruption. 92. 89. In Germany.
A regional breakdown of responses to this question is given in Chart 12. In all. D.Conclusion There is a dangerous lack of awareness of the international anti-corruption instruments among legal professionals. law societies and law firms in addressing the challenge of corruption The lack of awareness of the international anticorruption regulatory framework is a global challenge. law societies chart 12 – doeS your bar aSSociation or law Society Provide SPecific anti-corruPtion guidelineS for legal ProfeSSionalS? Asia OECD Convention Parties European Union Nordic countries UNCAC Parties Australasia Latin America Asia w/o Hong Kong and Singapore Africa Middle East Baltic States and Eastern Europe CIS 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Yes No I don’t know Note: Respondents could answer ‘yes’. Bar associations and law societies To ascertain the work carried out by national bar associations in the area of anti-corruption. or ‘there is no bar association in my jurisdiction’. ‘no’. Local bar associations. ‘I do not know’. approximately 43 per cent answered ‘yes’ to this question. respondents were asked whether their local bar associations provide specific anti-corruption guidance for legal practitioners. The survey asked respondents whether they feel these organisations are playing a positive role in addressing the challenges of corruption. The role of local bar associations. 20 anti-corruPtion Strategy for the legal ProfeSSion . 1. and law firms are integral to facing this problem. awareness of national legislation with extraterritorial applicability is slightly higher and this legislation is generally considered effective in preventing inbound and outbound corruption. However.
Chart 13 shows the results. Chart 14 compares the results by geographical region. The results show a low level of awareness of the existence of specific bar guidance on combating international corruption. foreign bribery? USA and Canada Asia Baltic States and Eastern Europe Australasia OECD Convention Parties CIS UNCAC Parties European Union Nordic countries Africa Latin America Asia w/o Hong Kong and Singapore 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Yes No I don’t know chart 14 – where doeS dealing with corruPtion and foreign bribery riSkS rank within the PrioritieS of your law firm? Africa Latin America Middle East Asia w/o Hong Kong and Singapore European Union UNCAC Parties Asia OECD Convention Parties Baltic States and Eastern Europe USA and Canada Nordic countries Australasia CIS 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Top priority Moderate priority Low priority I don’t know Those who recognised the existence of anticorruption guidance of their respective bar association were further asked whether such guidance tackles international corruption. 2. 21 riSkS and threatS of corruPtion and the legal ProfeSSion: Survey 2010 . Participants were questioned as to how local law firms prioritise the issue of international corruption. Law firms The survey also asked respondents to consider whether their law firms are doing enough to prepare their organisations and employees for the increasingly regulated and complicated world of anti-corruption. eg. by region.chart 13 – doeS your bar aSSociation or law Society guidelineS addreSS SPecifically the iSSue of international corruPtion.
See Chart 16 for the regional distribution of responses. ‘no’ or ‘I do not know’. many more associates than partners were unaware of a firmwide anti-corruption policy. Given the anonymity of the responses to the survey. Nearly 32 per cent of all respondents said ‘no’. chart 16 – doeS your law firm have a clear and SPecific anti-corruPtion Policy? Africa Middle East Latin America European Union Asia w/o Hong Kong and Singapore UNCAC Nordic countries OECD Australasia Asia USA and Canada Baltic States and Eastern Europe CIS Yes No I don’t know 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Note: Respondents could answer ‘yes’. respondents were asked whether their firms have a clear and specific anti-corruption policy. chart 15 – how reSPonSeS to ‘where doeS dealing with corruPtion and foreign bribery riSkS rank within the PrioritieS of your law firm’ are diStributed with reSPect to the PoSitionS held by reSPondentS Partner I don’t know Associate 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% Note: Respondents could answer ‘yes’. the results alert us about the possibility of a fracture in the vertical communication between the different levels of seniority in law firms regarding the organisation’s compliance priorities. In a similar question. we could not compare responses from members within the same law firm.Chart 15 shows that of those who selected ‘I do not know’ as the answer to this question. ‘no’ or ‘I do not know’. 22 anti-corruPtion Strategy for the legal ProfeSSion . However.
Following on from the discussion above related to client pressure to engage in corrupt behaviour. chart 17 – how reSPonSeS to ’doeS your law firm have a clear and SPecific anti-corruPtion Policy?’ are diStributed with reSPect to the PoSitionS held by reSPondentS in law firmS Partner I don’t know Associate 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% On a positive note. those who indicated that their law firms have a clear and specific anticorruption policy were then asked how their firms implement this policy. indicating that these efforts may not be disseminated to the firm’s lower ranks. More than 70 per cent of these respondents selected codes of ethics. fcPa comPliance? Australasia CIS Asia Baltic States and Eastern Europe OECD Convention Parties USA and Canada UNCAC Parties European Union Nordic countries Africa Latin America Asia w/o Hong Kong and Singapore Middle East 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 75%-100% 50%-75% 25%-50% Less than 25% 0% riSkS and threatS of corruPtion and the legal ProfeSSion: Survey 2010 23 . In all regions. Partners showed a more than five times higher level of awareness than associates. as shown in Chart 17. 22. Chart 18 shows the results by region: chart 18 – aPProximately what ProPortion of your foreign clientS require your firm to certify anti-corruPtion comPliance.6 per cent stated that their firms have a designated anti-corruption compliance officer. the survey also asked respondents what proportion of their clients require their firm to certify anticorruption compliance. more than 90 per cent of respondents stated that less than 25 per cent of clients required them to certify their anti-corruption compliance.8 per cent staff training. a familiar pattern again arose. 63.7 per cent corporate social responsibility statements and 20. eg.When those who selected ‘I do not know’ were cross-tabulated with their positions in the firm.
the survey results also showed that foreign companies rarely seek advice on issues of foreign bribery. See Chart 19 for a regional breakdown of the responses.This seems to confirm that clients are unaware of their own due diligence responsibilities and/or that they do not consider lawyers as intermediaries who could engage in corrupt acts and/or be subject to anti-corruption rules and regulations. Nearly 85 per cent of all respondents said they had never or rarely provided advice on this issue to foreign clients. Conclusion Respondents do not perceive their bar associations. younger and less-senior legal professionals often fail to pick up the message. chart 19 – haS your firm been Subject to anti-corruPtion or anti-money laundering due diligence conducted by foreign clientS? Asia w/o Hong Kong and Singapore Asia CIS Australasia Baltic States and Eastern Europe Middle East European Union OECD Convention Parties UNCAC Parties Latin America Africa USA and Canada Nordic countries 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Yes No I don’t know Finally. ‘has your firm been subject to anti-corruption or anti-money laundering due diligence conducted by foreign clients?’ confirms this assumption as two-thirds of respondents answered in the negative. Where such efforts are being made. law societies and law firms as actively engaging their professionals on issues of international bribery and corruption. 24 anti-corruPtion Strategy for the legal ProfeSSion . Respondents’ answers to the question.
Education. the legal profession – led by bar associations. Undertake industry-wide anti-corruption awareness-raising and training activities To raise awareness of the risks of corruption to the legal profession and the instruments available for protecting oneself from these risks. further research should be undertaken into the existence of international corruption in the legal profession. Recommendations Based on the survey results. 1. Mexico. Undertake further research on the levels of corruption in the legal profession The perception of corruption as a major issue within the legal profession is low.awarenessofnationallegislationwithextraterritorialapplicabilityisslightlyhigherandthislegislationisgenerally consideredeffectiveinpreventinginboundandoutboundcorruption. the following recommendations can be made to help the legal profession address the threat of corruption: 2. law societies. B. As the Strategy develops. it will also support the creation and promotion of anti-corruption modules for law school curricula. In order to reconcile the gap between perceived awareness of corruption as a problem and the everyday corruption-related challenges faced by legal professionals. However.Conclusions and recommendations A. with its Anti-Corruption Strategy for the Legal Profession. By 2012. Peru and Colombia.youngerandless-seniorlegalprofessionals oftenfailtopickupthemessage. a significant proportion of legal professionals noted that they or someone they know have been approached to act as an agent in an international transaction that could be considered as corrupt under the rules and regulations included in the international anticorruption regulatory framework. the training will be expanded globally. Training sessions for legal professionals on these issues have been held or are scheduled in Chile. The role of local bar associations.Wheresucheffortsarebeingmade. In 2011.Thereisalsotheviewthatinternational corruptionnegativelyaffectstheabilitytocompeteforbusinessinthelegalprofession. law societies and law firms in addressing the challenge of corruption Conclusion:Respondentsdonotperceivetheirbarassociations. training and awareness-raising at all levels is the key for the success in this industrywide plan for lawyers. However.lawsocietiesandlawfirmsasactivelyengagingtheirprofessionals onissuesofinternationalbriberyandcorruption. The IBA. certain preliminary conclusions can be drawn from the survey data: Perceptions of levels of corruption on the legal profession at home and abroad Conclusion:Roughlyhalfofallrespondentsperceivecorruptiontobeanissueinthelegalprofessioninboththeirhomeandin neighbouringjurisdictions. law schools and law firms – should do more to inform and train its professionals. Summary of conclusions Throughout this report. Level of awareness of the international anti-corruption regulatory framework Conclusion:Thereisadangerouslackofawarenessoftheinternationalanti-corruptioninstrumentsamonglegalprofessionals. From the survey results. has already paved the way in this respect. riSkS and threatS of corruPtion and the legal ProfeSSion: Survey 2010 25 . these training sessions will expand to Asia and Eastern Europe. Argentina. it appears that young lawyers are not being taught about this subject before entering professional practice. Risks associated with international bribery and corruption Conclusion:Respondentsrecognisethatasignificantnumberoflawyersareapproachedtoactasanagentormiddlemanin atransactionthatcouldreasonablybesuspectedtoinvolveinternationalcorruption. in cooperation with the OECD and the UNODC.
Compliance programmes for legal professionals must: (a) include measures to combat bribery and international corruption. and (b) be disseminated through the firm Law firms are encouraged to include measures to combat bribery and international anti-corruption in their compliance programmes. In the long run. In the meantime. the recently adopted OECD Good Practice Guidance on Internal Controls. the IBA intends to work on creating toolkits and other instruments to assist lawyers in tackling the risks and threats posed by corruption. firms must understand the challenges and potential liability that a weak approach to anticorruption could bring to the organisation. Ethics and Compliance for businesses and business organisations provides a good example of how such a compliance programme for legal professionals could look. 26 anti-corruPtion Strategy for the legal ProfeSSion .3. Although this should not be construed as a need to structure complex systems in addition to those already in place in some jurisdictions for anti-money laundering.
Bosnia. Italy. Hong Kong. Denmark. Germany. Paraguay. Netherlands. Croatia. Ethiopia. Denmark. Moldova. Slovenia. Australia. Iran. Norway. Kenya. Switzerland. Kenya. Greece. Representatives from 37 responded to this survey. France. Honduras. Guatemala. Poland. Slovakia. South Korea .) UNCAC Parties: Albania. Luxembourg. Tanzania. and Ukraine CIS: Ukraine. Russia European Union: Austria. Bulgaria. Kosovo. South Africa. Peru. Slovakia. Turkey. Sweden. Guatemala. Bolivia. Bosnia. Croatia. Uruguay. Israel. Sweden. United Arab Emirates.Annex 1 Geographical regions used in this report Geographical regions in this report are composed by the following jurisdictions: Africa: Algeria. France. Czech Republic. Singapore. Estonia. Poland. El Salvador. Nicaragua. Finland. Azerbaijan. Lithuania. Moldova. Romania. Algeria. Japan. United Arab Emirates and Yemen OECD Convention Parties: Argentina. Kyrgyz Republic. Sweden. Latvia. Malaysia. Spain. Italy. Malaysia. El Salvador. Chile. Lithuania. Greece. Austria. Qatar. Honduras. Belgium. Norway and Sweden Latin America: Argentina. Canada. Czech Republic. Ireland. Ireland. Yemen. Australia. Romania. Brazil. Luxembourg. Sweden and United Kingdom Nordic countries: Denmark. Zambia and Zimbabwe (This list only includes those UNCAC Parties where responses to the survey were submitted. Tanzania. Slovenia. Taiwan and Thailand Australasia: Australia and New Zealand Baltic States and Eastern Europe: Albania. Switzerland. Paraguay. Georgia. India. United States. Panama. South Korea. Macedonia. Mexico. Egypt. Poland. Moldova. Brazil. Portugal. South Africa. Nepal. Zambia and Zimbabwe Asia: Cambodia. Malta. Norway. Finland. Denmark. Mexico. Nigeria. Finland. Azerbaijan. Italy. Colombia. Slovenia. Germany. South Africa. Chile. Russia. Taiwan. Norway. Hungary. Israel. Portugal. Slovakia. Liechtenstein. Bolivia. Latvia. Colombia. Belgium. Sri Lanka. Ghana. Cyprus. Nigeria. China. Costa Rica. Turkey. Hong Kong. Slovenia. Peru. Spain. Iran. The 38th Party is Iceland. Luxembourg. Spain. Costa Rica. Lebanon. Singapore. Pakistan. Egypt. New Zealand. Hungary. Syria. Poland. Uganda. Argentina. Oman. Bulgaria. Cyprus. Ghana. Germany. Finland. Portugal. Oman. Latvia. Hungary. Hungary. Netherlands. Chile. Turkey. Kyrgyz Republic. Bulgaria. Denmark. Cayman Islands. Lebanon. South Korea. Uganda. Pakistan. United Kingdom.) riSkS and threatS of corruPtion and the legal ProfeSSion: Survey 2010 27 . Belgium. Malta. Greece. China. Lithuania. Russia. Bulgaria. Nicaragua. Panama. Canada. Qatar. Finland. Ukraine. Slovakia. Netherlands. Brazil. France. Uruguay and Venezuela Middle East: Egypt. Austria. Mexico. Venezuela. Czech Republic. Israel. Sri Lanka. Macedonia. Japan. United Kingdom and United States (There are 38 Parties to the OECD Convention. Cambodia. Romania.
Kenneth M. 1097. The Emergence of an International Enforcement Regime on Transnational Corruption in the Americas. 17 Currents Int’l Trade L J 27 2008-2009 Hatchard. Recent Developments in Combating the Bribery of Foreign Public Officials: A Cause for Optimism? 85 U Det Mercy L Rev 1 2007-2008 Jennifer D Faucett. The Evolving Domestic and International Law against Foreign Corruption: Some new and old dilemmas facing the International Lawyer. William Alan.com/images/lexmundi/PracticeGroups/BusinessCrimes/Law360June2010.pdf.Annex 2 Further reading Colares.lexmundi. 29 J Legal Prof 213 2004-2005 Law 360. Juscelino F. Catina. 30 Law & Pol’y Int’l Bus 53 1998-1999 28 anti-corruPtion Strategy for the legal ProfeSSion . Bruce & Ohri. last accessed 3 September 2010) Nelson II. Jill E & Rosen. Veronica & Haynes. 48(4) Villanova Law Review. The World of International Compliance: What Transactions Lawyers Need to Know to Perform Ethically and Responsibly. John. 5 Wash U Global Stud L Rev 1 2006 Fisch. Is There a Role for Lawyers in Preventing Future Enrons?. Attorney Liability Under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: Legal and Ethical Challenges and Solutions. Beware of the UK Bribery Act (Available at: www. 2003 Foley. The FCPA and its Impact in Latin America. Legal Malpractice and Bribery: The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Pitfalls it creates for Attorneys. 29 Hous J Int’l L 311 2006-2007 Zagaris. Martin J. Shaila Lakhani. 39 U Mem L Rev 255 2008-2009 Weinstein.
Leah Ambler and Mary Crane (OECD). Patrick Moulette. please contact Gonzalo Guzman. Dimitri Vlassis and Enrico Bisogno (UNODC).org.Acknowledgements The process to develop the survey and report was led by Gonzalo Guzman.guzman@int-bar. Nick Benwell (Simmons & Simmons). For more information about the Anti-Corruption Strategy for the Legal Profession: Please visit our website at www.org. riSkS and threatS of corruPtion and the legal ProfeSSion: Survey 2010 29 . To participate in this initiative.anticorruptionstrategy. Senior Staff Lawyer from the IBA Legal Projects Team with the kind support of Nicola Bonucci. at gonzalo. Mike Schwartz and Brent McDaniel (KPMG LLP) and IBA Legal Interns Sofia Laljee and Althaf Marsoof. IBA Senior Staff Lawyer.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.