29-10-2013, 09:32 AM
An interesting topic. I have never expected corporate lawyer for whistle blower role. Auditors and IDs are expected to do so. Let's see Mr. Shanmugam's view on the topic...
Should corporate lawyers help halt clients’ fishy transactions?
SINGAPORE — The legal sector here should follow the lead of other jurisdictions and “consider seriously” whether corporate lawyers ought to play a more proactive role in halting clients’ fishy transactions, said Attorney-General Steven Chong.
Specifically, this extends to proactively monitoring clients’ dealings, blowing the whistle on dubious corporate practices and reining in highly risky corporate decisions that “appear destined for a road to ruin”, he said.
Speaking at the 26th LAWASIA Conference yesterday, Mr Chong said: “I firmly believe that as the global community continues to explore ways to avert future financial crises, it would be remiss of us if we did not at least accord this question the full attention it deserves.”
While acknowledging that there is “no straightforward answer” to whether corporate lawyers should bear such responsibilities, Mr Chong noted that going by developments in jurisdictions, such as that of the United States, there appears to be “a growing consensus that lawyers should play the more proactive role of gatekeepers in corporate dealings”.
In the US, for instance, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act passed in 2002 — in the aftermath of major corporate and accounting scandals like the one at Enron — “imposes and enforces positive gatekeeping duties” on lawyers, he cited. They must report evidence of a material violation of law or breach of fiduciary duty, among other obligations.
In response to TODAY’s queries, a Law Society spokesperson agreed that this was a “complex issue which deserves further discussion and reflection”. “A lawyer’s duty of confidentiality does not necessarily fit comfortably with a wide gatekeeping duty.
“Having said that, lawyers are ultimately officers of the court, with a duty to uphold justice,” the spokesperson said, and added that there are already rules requiring lawyers to report dubious transactions to the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office.
Other lawyers pointed out that there might be practical challenges for them to fulfil a gatekeeper’s role.
Corporate litigator Tan Hee Joek pointed out that clients might be afraid of fully and frankly disclosing information to lawyers for fear of these being used against them subsequently.
Earlier at the conference, which was attended by some 300 delegates from more than 25 countries, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon also said detailed proposals on the Singapore International Commercial Court — an idea he floated at the start of this legal year — would be open for consultation soon.
More details of the initiative will be elaborated by Minister for Law K Shanmugam later today during the conference.
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/sho...ansactions
Should corporate lawyers help halt clients’ fishy transactions?
SINGAPORE — The legal sector here should follow the lead of other jurisdictions and “consider seriously” whether corporate lawyers ought to play a more proactive role in halting clients’ fishy transactions, said Attorney-General Steven Chong.
Specifically, this extends to proactively monitoring clients’ dealings, blowing the whistle on dubious corporate practices and reining in highly risky corporate decisions that “appear destined for a road to ruin”, he said.
Speaking at the 26th LAWASIA Conference yesterday, Mr Chong said: “I firmly believe that as the global community continues to explore ways to avert future financial crises, it would be remiss of us if we did not at least accord this question the full attention it deserves.”
While acknowledging that there is “no straightforward answer” to whether corporate lawyers should bear such responsibilities, Mr Chong noted that going by developments in jurisdictions, such as that of the United States, there appears to be “a growing consensus that lawyers should play the more proactive role of gatekeepers in corporate dealings”.
In the US, for instance, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act passed in 2002 — in the aftermath of major corporate and accounting scandals like the one at Enron — “imposes and enforces positive gatekeeping duties” on lawyers, he cited. They must report evidence of a material violation of law or breach of fiduciary duty, among other obligations.
In response to TODAY’s queries, a Law Society spokesperson agreed that this was a “complex issue which deserves further discussion and reflection”. “A lawyer’s duty of confidentiality does not necessarily fit comfortably with a wide gatekeeping duty.
“Having said that, lawyers are ultimately officers of the court, with a duty to uphold justice,” the spokesperson said, and added that there are already rules requiring lawyers to report dubious transactions to the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office.
Other lawyers pointed out that there might be practical challenges for them to fulfil a gatekeeper’s role.
Corporate litigator Tan Hee Joek pointed out that clients might be afraid of fully and frankly disclosing information to lawyers for fear of these being used against them subsequently.
Earlier at the conference, which was attended by some 300 delegates from more than 25 countries, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon also said detailed proposals on the Singapore International Commercial Court — an idea he floated at the start of this legal year — would be open for consultation soon.
More details of the initiative will be elaborated by Minister for Law K Shanmugam later today during the conference.
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/sho...ansactions