Okay. Hello, everybody. So, in terms of this, this is about legal ethics and regulation. So what we're gonna cover in today's session is the debate between legal ethics on regulation on thinking about what that means. So role of legal ethics. This is the world off. Personal and professional, ethical and moral standpoints and what that looks like. And we're gonna talk about the s always practice now on integrity and some of the other positions there. We're gonna have a look at the policy development in relation to the new s away handbook on. We're going to think about the new individual, um, firm coats and where the ethical requirements sitting relation to that, we're gonna have a think about a question of trust which was part of the s always policy development on Why did Saudi society see the role of solicitors and what's that personal versus professional ethical standpoint? In relation to that on, we're going to also have a think about comparatively as well. So we're gonna have a think about comparative reporting in international positions on some of the boxes that people get put in in terms off. Being is the sense some of those professional stunt that's that get set in relation to that. So, for example, in conflict of interest, how that works. And if you're COC firm, you'll likely find this interesting is where we're gonna have a look at some of the comparative positions and some of those higher standards that people are set to in terms of conflict of interest in comparison with COC, for example, on think about how that works as well. Seeing a debate recently form the S away in their practice note and some of the cases that the S I have been involved in in terms of the distinction between integrity and honesty and their practice note in relation to that clarifies that integrity is a wider concept, that honesty and relates to ethics specifically so what they've said. The law society Ethics involves making commitments, acting with integrity and honesty in relation toe widely mechanize moral principles. I think we're going to professional towards an appropriate way to behave in relation to more dilemmas that arise in practice. We can support that position by taking advice by talking to our colleagues, but also we're going to do some comparative looking into day session what other people do in certain situations that can help those resolve our own concerns about different ways of behaving morally and what other people think in relation to those. But also, if we've got sale, see lawyers here watching this, we are going to do some CLC comparative work later. This session can also be useful to you as well to look at what the S. R. A is doing in relation to the different ways in which people behave. So sometimes, if you can't find on articulation in your own regulation rules, it can be useful to look elsewhere as well. Ethics is based on the principles of serving the interests of the consumers of legal services and just trying to get this line in the right place and the interests of consumers of legal services on acting in the interests of the administration of justice. Okay, so this was a really interesting sentence for May, which in the interests of a conflict acting in the interest of the administration of justice, prevails. Okay, so we have consumers on one hand on we have ah, the administration of justice, on the other hand, and in the interests of if there's a conflict of interest between the two of them, the administration of justice. So the overall position in relation to society prevails, is what the law society says. You have to think about it in the widest possible context. OK, so overarching. Lee. The continuation on the prevail of the interests of the administration of justice is likely to benefit the consumers on the widest possible basis. And this is really interesting. The debate versus integrity versus honesty that the SA has been involved in recent and some of the cases. There's been a bit of a debate as to whether or not they're the same thing. Yes, Away has clarified, as have the court to say. Actually, no integrity is a much wider concept. And in their practice note, Yes, I have quoted Lord Justice Jackson what saying integrity keynotes adherence to the ethical standards of one's own profession that involves more than mere honesty. To take one example, a solicitor conducting negotiations or barrister making submissions to a judge or arbitrator will take particular care not to mislead. Such a professional person is expected to be even more scrupulous about accuracy than a member of the public in daily discourse the duty to act with integrity employees not only to a professional person, say, but what they do on. We can see this mirrored in the new S away standards and regulations which relate to where they say, you know, this Ah, in sections on dispute resolution and also on in relation to consumers as section in ER in relation to disclosure as well confidentiality and disclosure. What it says in relation to dispute resolution is that you must disclose the full information to court on the relation to the consumers of legal services. So going what the law Society of said, we know where you're putting those two things at the heart of ethics. You must disclose all information material to the consumers or the client's matter in relation to that. But the S away have said in their practice note on integrity is that they're going to take action in relation to situations where there's been willful or reckless disregard of standards, walls, legal requirements and obligations or ethics. Andi, they've highlighted situations in which the term solicitor on the wording the you know, the standards expected of a solicitor in professional. This would be such that somebody could be misled or might think that somebody was telling truth because of the fact that they were so list of it goes beyond that. You know, you can mislead, for example, by a mission or by being reckless. You can not tell somebody the full situation in relation in respect of something. So examples that they have given about that either ah, reckless behavior or where people disregarded the situation are sham partnerships where there's been reckless payment from client account and also taking financial advantage. We might also draw a parallel what the s away has recently published their practice note in relation to the situation, on balancing duties in litigation as well, where you're not supposed to act as a hired gun so that balancing the requirement of acting in the best interests of decline with the administration of justice on acting with integrity a same time, What do we think about our ethical standpoint? What is the COC? The COC is a council for license conveyances, so they are separate regulator are used to work for the S away and also for the CLC. So, um ah, it's a different regulatory body and they can. That seals the lawyer's. Ah, I was just saying they can also benefit from this webinar a swell a lot to include them because I used to work there as well as I used to work for the US away. So, um, what makes up our ethical standpoint? And so if you have a look in the references to the paper that I put together, is those notes that there there's some really interesting points and I remember this back sort of second or third j law degree. Some of these, uh, papers there, there where there's that discussion about roses and individual versus Azaz, professional people versus those with duties and what that means and what that looks like. So people are there on there saying I'm an individual. This is my individual personal moral standpoint. But then there's a separate set of Regulate Truls as well. And if you have a look in the papers, there's somebody called Thomas Shea Flow that that's written quite extensively about this, about the separation so individually we might not necessarily agree with the walls that have been put together, but we might have We might have a different ball standpoint, and that different moral standpoint might come from those individuals might come from where we come from. It might come from the groups and societies that we were part off, and I didn't personally a lot of work relating to culture, for example, cool and culture in different forms with different communities and different groups and that kind of thing on, we definitely can so that people have, for example, national culture and different ways about you. We might say that something is typically British. For example, if we all stand in a queue there societal norms that relate to Earth as a whole, we might see some of those reflected in a set of regulatory rules there. Put together, we might also see reflections of how we expect solicitous to behave and how expect somebody else on the other side to pay them. That should be reflected in regulation walls that might differ from how we feel personally on our personal perspective in relation to that one of Russians that's there that came out. One of the papers that I was reading there was Do more lawyers need more support in understanding their personal values and partly the s away, you know has thought about this in terms of saying that yes, Away has this power which it does exercise frequently, which looks and thinks about how people behave in their personal life. On Guess Away has disciplined people in the past, has taken regulate direction against people in the past that says, you know, these are the actions that you've taken in your personal life. They don't necessarily called with the standards that we expect a solicitor on. The same goes for employees and managers within law firms. There is the possibility and the S away has done in the past that employees are manages within law. Firms also have that responsibility as well to a pole that they have taken action against people for things that happened in their personal life before we can see that mirrored in the S always new standards and regulations on what they've said is, I'm just going to read this to you got it written down over here. What it says in the code of conduct for firms is managers. Employees have to be competent to carry out their role on keep their professional knowledge and skills as well as their legal ethical um, regulate treat obligations up today. So if you're working in a firm, you have to go away and think about that with your own firmas well on, we can see that, Paul, you know I, as a person, have my own obligations to my family, to three people that I know and there is a certain way of doing things on. Then there's a separate set that relates to professionally how that might look and professionally, how you might behave, and you might find a ah, Paul between those two things. But having that exploration of the two things can be very useful with you in your firm to have that discussion with people say, Do we think this is appropriate? How does this function for hours on? What does that mean for a za law firm? So there's a way of recognized a distinction between personal on professional within the handbook on I don't necessarily endorse this. This is an example of a wall where I have a personal feeling about it. I don't necessarily agree in relation to that. What it says at 1.1 is you do not unfairly discriminate by allowing your personal views perfect your professional relationships on the way in which you provide your services. So what they've said is there is a distinction between those professionally I'm personally, but I don't necessarily endorse it in relation to the way they've set out their relation to equality and diversity. I've got my own feelings about that. We, as individuals, have this own standpoint that we need to be over to pull and recognize on. That relates not only towards personally, but was toe professionally on the white. Also think about it is different faces related to oclock. All of those different people that bite have a pull on you personally. You can also have the same professionally. So I've listed some of the different things there where we might have paused professionally, for example, are employers might have an impact to a say in the way in which we deliver services and they might be a conflict or something there where you say what you want? Professional judgment doesn't necessarily coincide with that my employer the same goes with introductions and referrals and those people that we do business with, we have to disclose that to the client in order to get over any potential conflict on to ensure that they understand any financial pull that might be there in relation to something. If you're an in house solicitor, that might be something that sits well, because those people are also your climb. But you have a personal duty to them in the contract you have signed. So there's lots of different ways in which this can operate. And if you're free lunch or thinking about going freelance in the future, this is, you know, those s away regulated independent professionals. This is where people could have the additional pull. We also have duties to the other side to society as a whole, as we've seen in terms of the administration. Just this on def. You were director, for example. There are specific situations related to that. We might also have duties to people in our own personal, so each of these can provide. Maybe conflict is a bit of a strong word, but the arrests that can sit alongside the professional work that people do on solicitors and other lawyers are expected to fight in the pendant and unfettered advice ethics versus regulation. So, in terms off we sit as ethical and have the particular where we should regulate for legal services. So what's the the point of regulating if we take that we have individual mold standpoint in relation to something? Is there something where we can take this and push? It looked further to say we should regulate for legal services to achieve the following outcomes on We've got some different options there in relation to in relation to that. So why should we regulate and watch we think about when regulate when regulating for legal services? We've got acting in the best interests of consumers. We've got consumer protection. We've got client confidences and privilege yet operating with good standard of service, operating with honor, integrity, controlling the legal services market or having something in relation to that. So there's different requirements there which might be separate toe our individual ethical standpoint where we might be seeking to achieve ah, wider societal aim that regulation is achieving on. We can have regulation were just voting on that we can have regulate your responses that are different depending on the regulator, on how the regulator wants to do business and what they want to achieve So some people criticize, for example, continued prosecution. Um, and you know, see that as being a very aggressive stomach point, that enforcement action potentially there needs to be more relationship management in some cases in regulation, so going out and trying to solve problems before they before they occur. You can also see this within your own firmas well, so do you want to have a disciplinary process, for example? Or do you want to try to go out and work with people on the ethical standpoint, to try to so problems before they can? What kind of something is there? So let's think about an internal response. So if we think about this within our own firm, what can you do to evidence that you've taken those steps with your firm? Berry in mind, The code of conduct for firms requires you to think about bandages, employees to make sure people are keeping up to date with their ethical requirements and that this is a requirement within the SA A humble. We'll understand your own ethical position and discuss it with stuff. And don't be afraid to have that discussion with people to say to people. Well, what do you think about falls? Do you agree with divorce? How does this sit with your own ethical standpoint? And it says something different in their What things do you like and what things don't you like? And we don't always have to be so positive as to say yes, actually, this is Ah, definitely a really positive thing. We can disagree with those all. Sometimes we might have unethical on moral reason why we don't necessarily think something is the right thing to do. Or we might think it's better articulated somewhere else as a leader within a law firm. If you're leader, understand the impact of your own standpoint. So you will be projecting that in some different why culture is often part of leadership and the way in which has been set in the way people that's mirrored within the firm. So they set the agenda the leaders as to what's actually happening, Anderson the impact of that on then think about your client care and discuss that with stuff. Where do we have a client care and where does the overlap with the administration of justice and where have come? We balance those two things out Andi start to facilitate those discussions with stuff around that definition of legal ethics so that people understand that there were obligations related to that and also being in people's personal perspective. Is there anything that we would do different? They Andi, is there anything they have seen done differently? And why was that on? Did it work? You can use that in some way. I learned something from it. If you map out all of the different duties that euro two different people and all of the different disclosures that can also show to people how people have different interests as well and how we manage those within firms and stimulate the ethical discussion with people, do you recognize the pressures and stresses on stuff? And that could be personal as well on then, if you're freelance or in house, sometimes it can be difficult to articulate and get across that message to say. Actually, this is the standpoint that that I have there could be stresses there in terms of managing that relationship. I'm managing those requirements. The s a way of recently just published their new set, Garden's for unregulated providers, setting out the important roles off solicitors in terms of conflict. On confidentiality, I suspect that there's gonna be some very strong descriptions to be hard for individual freelances. Going forward, you can put policies and procedures in place and have ethics committees to have those discussions to support the Copan, the coffer and provide training for stuff on fiduciary duties and what that looks like but also have clear systems in place for reporting misconduct. Andi within that, have an independent voice as well. To evidence that ethical standpoint, you can also accommodate some of this in your file review and supervision. So where unethical pop name comes up or you know something thorny where it might be a personal perspective? Let's discuss it with the whole team and see what we can learn in respect of that, yes, away. Do you think about bringing society in if you like? So those societies, perspectives in respect off what duties owed in respect of solicitors on they had surveyed in 2015 when the developing the new hamburger, um, 5000 people not included solicitors and members of the public on what they felt wars that the most serious issues in relation to this were misuse of client money, taking advantage of fiduciary positions and misleading or false evidence. There were mixed responses to whether or not there is in a solicitor's personal life or misjudgments in somebody's personal life. Could, um ah or misjudgments in the personal life should result in some finding of serious misconduct. So if you do something wrong, your personal life there was a very split response as to whether or not that should constitute misconduct. What the s away didn't think about was whether or not they should regulate for certain things. So they're certain standards that we expect of solicitors, as we'll see in the comparative reporting in a minute that they didn't necessarily ah, that they didn't necessarily think about. So they didn't think about things like whether we should regulate for client confidences or undertakings or fiduciary duties, or whether client money should be kept separate. So they didn't think about it in that way. They asked what kinds of things would constitute misconduct and how does that work And look on the interesting thing I found there was there looking out financial situations related to clients and consumers came out the most serious on providing misleading or false evidence to the court. If we go back and look at the Newham book in a way that's been developed, we can very much see it's about opening up the market for, ah, on bringing in people who are not necessarily solicitors into the legal services market on the impact this is gonna have in terms off what we mean by solicitor, how that works and also whether or no it's going to change the standards, the regulatory standards and also the ethical or moral viewpoint of what we mean by a solicitor going forward, because there's undoubtedly going to be challenges coming in in terms of regulated providers and freelance listers. Be interesting to see where that sits in terms of client confidentiality in terms of client care, Ondo standards that we would ordinarily expect to see from solicitors we've seen as time has gone on challenges in terms of to bring in that competition into the legal services market. But whether we're likely to see the condensing of that going forward under in doing this, bringing in the new hum book if you have a look at it s a way, has substantially reduced the content of the new humble down to just a few pages. Okay, so what they're really looking at is the condensed wording in respect of that on the ethical standpoint, and it's much more about the solicitor Professional judgment in respect of Onda, Also, the firm's exercise of their power now do bear in mind that people can hive off part of their firm in relation to the new rule. So you might find solicitors working with non solicitors or businesses being completely separate from each other's on. You know, the regulation in the particular set of circumstances applying over and, you know, in the regulated part of the business, with the rest of it being left separately. So there can be. And there's likely to be, different ways of working on whether or not that be challenged in the future will be interesting to see. So if you have a look at the new codes of conduct through the, uh, there was a code for individuals, there's a code for firms, and then there's a lot of information that sits that is very common to both of them, some of that you can't find in the code for individuals that so that you can find in the code for firms, for example. You find it in the code for individuals, and you have to sort of pull it. Of course, the requirements are still there for emulation to firms. But there is this challenge in terms of unregulated providers on where that's going to sit in the future. Yes, Ive A has provided this guidance in terms of what we would expect to see from a solicitor in those terms, including conflict, confidentiality and integrity for regulated or unregulated providers in order to in order to assist. We're going to move on now to talking about reporting on where that sort of sits on, How that, um, you know, uh, works internationally as well when you have to report yourself, there is, um, unethical position related to this and, ah, on ah, position where people are in a position where if you make a report, you make herself report, you'll make a report about somebody else. It can result in prosecution, and that might be a prosecution before solicitors disciplinary tribunal. But you also have to bear in mind that things can also be the reporting off. For example, a criminal offense. So if somebody is taking money from the client account, this is also porting a criminal offence. The S away and other regulators have a memorandum of understanding with law enforcement and counter forward. So just bear in mind if you are in that position where you're making a report, you are also potentially making a report off a criminal offense that could be share it with, um, law enforcement agencies as well. There are organizations that can support, if you're in a difficult position on that includes the Solicitors Assistance game that does provide an hour's free advice in relation to that. And there's a similar position. If you're dealing with an accountant's report, they they sort of throw up something as well. Do you take the opportunity if you're in a in a serious situation? Teoh to take some professional voice, and there are question marks about this in terms of, say, what extension people be required to report themselves To what extent should people be with hard to report other people on particularly mood? Pulling back that ham book in relation to this were saying We're pulling back that handbook in relation to this and we're saying people are being left to their own professional Richman. To what extent should people be required to report incidents that curve in people's personal lives as well? Im Where should that line the height? In respect of our own bubble? If you like our own bubble in terms of our personal perspective on our bubble in terms of our ah professional life, if we look at the S always enforcement strategy, what they go on to say is thinking about when they're going to make a prosecution. They would take into account whether or not something has occurred in somebody's probably life or no on what that means. But they would also look to see whether or not there's been criminal convictions. And this is a common example of where the SRV will extend their jurisdiction, both for solicitors and for employees and managers beyond their regulator walls and their regulator response into somebody's personal life. They will also have a look to see whether somebody has lacked on estate or whether it's gone beyond that, whether been reckless in the way in which they've adopted something with the title solicitor. Now we can see, I think there's going to be a challenge in respect of this, in terms of those and regulated providers on that blurred line in terms of the duties that people owe on how that's going to be potentially a doctor going forward, people are going toe. You know, interpret this in different ways as we see the increasing competition as that's what's intended. And we might see challenges to what we understand by the relationship that's listed might have with clients or might have with other people. As a result of that, they look at intention and motivation or whether people have been deliberate or reckless in their intention of what that looks like on whether what the harm and the impact has been on the individual. Overall on this is the new enforcement strategy that sits alongside what the s or way of delivering with the standards and regulations. So it's not necessarily their current situation in terms of reporting Andi, um, prosecution. When looking at this question and thinking about it, I did some comparative looking externally. I'm one of the questions I wanted to ask Waas. When solicitors need to report themselves or one of the solicitor Andi, what does that look like on. Sometimes I'm in just this situation where you kind of say, used to the situation with cops and coffers. Now we'll have to make a report about themselves. I'm used to a situation where there is that extent into people's personal life, where people have to make those reports if there's been something there. But there are regulators around the world that discourage the reporting of individuals and particularly focused on client confidences and legal professional privilege and also potentially wasting the regulators time. But they don't necessarily want a handle that information where the client has the white in the administration of justice to a defense, for example, to those kinds of things on that they're looking on putting that first in terms of legal professional privilege and respecting the solicitors bowl in dealing with that, so in some instances around the world, is discussion. That's interesting. If we think about reporting to the, for example, sometimes says that, think about, should I report should I not report to what extent if somebody has, you know, if there's a relationship in relation to a criminal offence, so it's interesting to see that that's being honored around the world some of the year. The circumstances are fitness to practice, so somebody's health was a question mark, for example, or if somebody had committed serious misconduct or there was some form of harm. In some cases, they also look at the trustworthiness, so thinking about the integrity of the individual as a whole, what the Law Society of Canada model Code said, was generally, however, the society would not be interested. Are concerned with the purely private or extra professional activities off a lawyer that do not bring into question the lawyers professional integrity. But all off the overseas requirements. They all had requirements related to conflict of interest. They had relating fiduciary duties, legal professional privilege, client relations, relations with their parties and including people on the other sides of the adversaries, on also in relation to management. So there's definitely standards that people expect around the world that are being set for lawyers in order to deliver the services declines that people expect in order to be able to act with independence in order to be a provide unfettered advice on in order to be able to deliver their services in the way that clients expect that might go beyond that which could be articulated by members of the public. So there are lots of different requirements there that were set all around the world that were found to be important for law firms and lawyers. So he s always individual of fortune requirements are set out on. They require you to think about criminal charges, convictions and cautions. And you know, that doesn't have to be an impression on life. That could be your personal life as well. On I'm relevant insolvency events as well. Yes. Away hards said that you ensure prompt report is made to Nsaba or another approved regulator as appropriate of any serious breach of their regulator arrangements by any person, including you, of which you aware pls be had an application in from the sa way, which looked at this and said, Ah, yes, away was saying that they were gonna go to it so that there was ah ah, paragraph they're related to, um if you reasonably believe there had been a serious breach that has not yet been adopted by the S away on and but we've still got until November that the application went in in February. And, yes, I have not adopted it yet. I don't know whether or not they're intending to do so is still out there. So there's this question mark over whether there's a standard. They're related to reasonable belief. Why would like to do now? Because what I wanted to explore with some of these boxes that people put in in terms of their professional duties. One of the boxes that people are put in, where there is a higher standard related to individuals on solicitors and firms is conflict of interest. Now there's a separate position in professional life where you can be held separately, responsible in terms of conflict, of interest on that separate to the position of law. And it's different to the duties that are owed as directors. For example, there is a separate requirement and an additional requirement where people are being held to a higher standard. Our solicitors, when we're dealing with conflict of interest and it's one of those boxes that we can see around the world that people are put into. So what I would like to do is do some comparison between this aunt on the CLC. So looking at the s always new requirements related to conflict of interest on the CEO sees new requirements related to, uh, the CEO sees really requirements related to conflict of interest on Compare the two so we can see whether or not people connect in different situations. On also some of the discussion points that sit around there in relation to that on link it back into integrity and what is being provided in respective. I'm dealing with the consumers. So in relation to this, let's ever think about what the S always says. This is in the new standards and regulations. But what it says is you do know if there is an own interest, conflict or a significant risk of such a conflict. So the own interest conflict in terms of your professional integrity and in terms of you as an individual. So this could be in your personal life on your private life. It can also be in your professional life. So if you have any form of conflict at all yourself as an individual, the prohibition on this is absolute. It goes on to say you do not act in relation to a matter or particular aspect of it if you have a conflict of interest or a significant risk of such a conflict in relation to that matter or aspect off it, unless the clients of substantial common interest or competing for the same objective, yes away have changed the rules in relation to this. The paragraphs relating to completing for the same objective sit there underneath. There's various requirements relating to informed consent, effective safeguards and reason bonus that apply their relating to competing for the same objective but don't apply there in relation to substantially common interest. They have also changed it where, they say, if there is a client conflict, So they're saying, If you have a conflict of interest oh, a significant risk of a conflict of interest in relation to that matter on what they're saying is in relation to, for example, the principles, your ability to act in the best interests of clients. Andrew ability to act, um, provide unfettered advice in respect of that, so it is a conflict of interest relates to the clients. But it's you who has the conflict of interest, and that applies whether it's the firm or whether it's the individual in relation to that, the conflict of interest is the client conflict of interest, as was previously stated, but clarified the issue that has the conflict of interest in relation to substantially conflict that substantially common interest he s away have clarified that this'll has a few people lost connection. There are still people there. Okay, I think Tom's looking at it at the moment. So in village, in relation to that, the clients have a substantially common interest as appropriate. What the s away have said is that this isn't necessarily about acting on both sides off conveyancing transaction. Where you're looking at is clients with this substantially common interest in respective matter. So, for example, two business partners who are seeking to purchase a business if you want to act on both sides of a compliancy matter, what they've said is you have to think about whether or not there's a conflict of interest in relation or not. And that's the beginning bit. So do you have conflict? Do you not have a conflict on? You're more likely to have a conflict if there's a negotiating position to be done between the parties or if their parties have any sort of imbalance at all. When we're dealing with the COC, we can have a look across and seal the kinds of things in which they have, comparatively the kinds of things in which they've bought in to the situation, so that you can compare and contrast how they're dealing with conflict of interest. And sometimes you can find something interesting in there that might articulate the perspective a little bit differently. So what they say is, ah, clients are aware of in the limitation or condition resulting from your relationship with another party who talked about all those different parties, and that's the faces of the clock at the beginning of the session, thinking about all those different people that we owe a duty to on. You have to disclose that to people, and it's not necessarily going as far as saying there's a conflict of interest is about saying that those people might have a different interest, and we have to articulate that in a particular way. You are allowed to act on both sides in relation to a matter if you are a C L C practitioner. If you're dealing with conveyancing transaction, but you have to do it with Chinese walls. People have to be separate, Andi corresponding that way, and people have to be also appropriately qualified. I faith the I'm. So if it's frozen for a few, people were just going to carry on. And I'll let Tom sort out those those people who wear their experience in a signal problem. So, um, and people have to be informed inviting, and they have to have development issues. Explain to them. What the CLC goes on to say is, you do know, act or continue tracked For a climber, your ability to give independent advice is in any way restricted on. This might advise if you owe separate duties to act in the best interests of two or more clients, or your duty to act in the best interest of any client, relate conflicts with your own obligations. So they make a distinction between acting on both sides in a convincing matter that the SA way has not necessarily made. So there's two different competing ways of looking at this on ethically is interesting for people. If you were a, for example, working in license, convinced for on, then he went to work in a solicitor for me, could be doing the same type of work, but with a different outcome on how does that sit with you and your professional judgment? And how does that work with you as an individual? The standards that have been set for people are quite different. What I would like to have a think about, I just go through the sale, sees mentioned. Sales is guidance for you, which is interesting. Then we can have a look a quick problem to finish the webinar. So the CLC guidance on conflict You should assess all relevant factors to determine if there's conflict of interest between the clients on that includes financial imbalance and that somebody is vulnerable or the interests of markedly different and can't be reasonably reconciled on, um if, for example, there's a conflict of interest between yourself and Klein. For instance, if there's a financial interest or personal or commercial relationship, so thinking about all of those different things, the COC also have some quite strong notes where they don't say you can't do it outfight, but they're calling to do so. What they say is be aware of transactions. There are no arms length, be aware off developers and particular sellers as developers. Andi Less is granting a lease as well. But do be aware if you're dealing with developers thinking about thinking about that, I'm thinking about who is actually developer, what the situation and how that's working. I wouldn't necessarily say it's not complete prohibition. You have to consider the situation quite carefully. However, it's not necessarily something that I would advocate acting on both sides of your in that situations. And the point I want to make in respect of this is you can draw on different, comparative or sometimes to articulate a situation, but also to explore that ethically within your firm and to say, How do we feel about these rules on what does this look like for us? Onda Also, you can say that as a firm you're expected to both as a firm and as individuals. You're expected to work to a different and potentially higher standard than other businesses Andi than other organizations, and that when we think about unregulated providers and then US Away handbook that can cause some difficulty, we're going to have to work very carefully to look at the new requirements in the subway handbook and in order to ensure that people are exercising their professional judgment on that. They're doing so appropriately. So this is the problem. You live in a Hamlet, you're approached by developer wanting to purchase and Barnes in the Hamlet for development, and they want to turn them into residential housing. And they're hoping that you're going to act. You know, most people in the Hamlet person a including their background. No one's been approached about selling yet, but there will be some negotiation you in that situation where our solicitors or as property lawyers are being held to that that different standard. We have to think about whether or not you've got on own interest conflict, whether or not there's some potential of that on what they different relationship are between people, whether there's this pool and there's some quite specific rules and guidance out there for people. But also, if you're an unregulated provider or if you're thinking about going freelance in the future, there is something that there where, um, you might have to be in a position to have some quite distant, strong discussions with your employer to be able to exercise influence within your firm within your employment situation. So would you act in any of those situations or anything like that? So if you're free lunch, Um, seriously, you might be in a position where you're put in a conflict of interest position or you might be asked to act in different situations. You're gonna have to balance of those rules and have those discussions individually and see how those play out. So just to be aware on to be fully conversant with the S always requirements or conflict of interest. Onda also used for sometimes, too, to see what else is out there. Some excellent guidance from the CLC that sometimes we can use in different ways to articulate potentially how this might look in different situations. I said in respective, I guess some people have said, see only, yeah, in respective I, um Yet I would not act as a might have a financial interest. I live in Hamlet. It might affect mine. Or my friends finances it. It might do. You've potentially got that personal relationship. You could be in that position. I can imagine if you've got a pub in the handler and you go to heaven s gonna have an impact on your personal relationship with people. You know, the background of the individuals in relation to this. And there can be some financial negotiation and that can put you in a very, very awkward position here. Quite like there Something I hadn't thought of. It is gonna have an impact on you as well. So So there's the the impact that you're thinking about whether or not you would be a big toe. Give that advice on act independently. This situation, you might be feted in some way, but it depends on your relationship. You might have to what carefully and think about the relationship between you and the other parties. If the same outcome assault by post parties, you could act in D. Now, this is an interesting debate in terms of whether or not people have a substantially common interest or not. While the S away have said in relation to the substantially common interest and he s away have said in relation to that is this substantially common interest is unlikely to reply would not necessarily apply. They are a bit herbal tea about it, where there is, uh, acting on both sides. Situation in a convincing transaction on you would have to think about whether or not there was a conflict of interest or not. However, we don't know the details of the development deal in respect of this, and we might just be looking at it on face value. So we have to think about where this is going in respect of that, on whether or not there would be some joint deal in terms of development, those kinds of things. And that's why I was a bit cautious about that potential prohibition from the CLC, or extreme caution from the sale. See, in terms of the response on that one as well, if you look at the answers that I've written, so you know, I think we're in that situation where you might tough that own interest, conflict and see if there was no other relationship. In respect of that, you'll good to go and then in relation to day, you have two very seriously. While you're that situation, you might fall foul of the walls in relation. But it depends on what the situation waas in respect of that deal, how far along it was on the table. I'm also what the deal actually Waas in respect of that, let's have a look at what we've covered. We've thought about legal ethics and the debate between personal on professional standards on the extent which three jurisdiction extends into personal lives. And we've talked about having a rowing personal moral perspective on whether or not we should facilitate that within our firm. So I have a discussion about that about what we think about the balls, whether or not they were probe here are fit for purpose. How that sits with our personal perspective on how we can facilitate that discussion within our firms to say, Is there any walls that you disagree with? What kind of are they fit for purpose? Andi, In terms off ethics and regulation on the distinction between the two, we've thought about whether or not, you know, having a personal compress and having a regulator response is the same thing we all have. Different commercial pressures don't way. So it's one of those things where there could be a separate commercial pressure. And again, that's something to discuss, potentially within your firm on the ethical situation that you could be placed under on the obligations that you have Ah, on a wider basis, you know, to keep your firm going, financial viability, those kinds of things. And we all have that commercial perspective to consider is, well, a policy development of the new s away ham book and then individual, um, firm code. So we thought about that on the unregulated providers. And there's undoubtedly with increased pressure on commercial pressure, to bring that into the perspective in terms of unregulated providers and way they sit. We've also, you know, going to see that I think increased challenge to what it means to be a solicitor. With those influences coming out, that's well, we thought about the question of trust. And we've thought about those boxes that lawyers get put into all around the world on what we mean by that and what kinds of common standards they have in common. Um, Onda, how those standards were different. And we've seen some comparative examples of how that's articulated from the S away in the COC on if we think about what the law Society said in the first place, six is about thinking about mold dilemmas and how to resolve them. Sometimes it could be useful to go and seek a comparative viewpoint to see how other people have articulated that situation. And so we thought about that at the close of the session as well with that thing to do. So thank you very much for watching this webinar.
Webinar
Notes
Quiz 
4398 Users
91 Courses
165 Reviews
