Internal Investigations in Compliance Matters: What Role for Legal Professional Privilege in Europe?

Q2 Social Sciences European Business Law Review Pub Date : 2021-04-01 DOI:10.54648/eulr2021014
Thomas Kruessmann
{"title":"Internal Investigations in Compliance Matters: What Role for Legal Professional Privilege in Europe?","authors":"Thomas Kruessmann","doi":"10.54648/eulr2021014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Information is key to understanding possible wrongdoing in corporations. When allegations of wrongdoing occur, management often invites external counsel to conduct internal investigations because legal professional privilege is seen as crucial in protecting information. In the post-Brexit EU, the objective scope of such privilege is under debate while there is little alignment with developments in the UK. This paper will explore what the deepening divide in the understanding of legal professional privilege may mean. It proposes a policy model, summarizes recent developments in England and Germany and comes to some refined conclusions to serve a broader comparative analysis of internal investigations.","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Business Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2021014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Information is key to understanding possible wrongdoing in corporations. When allegations of wrongdoing occur, management often invites external counsel to conduct internal investigations because legal professional privilege is seen as crucial in protecting information. In the post-Brexit EU, the objective scope of such privilege is under debate while there is little alignment with developments in the UK. This paper will explore what the deepening divide in the understanding of legal professional privilege may mean. It proposes a policy model, summarizes recent developments in England and Germany and comes to some refined conclusions to serve a broader comparative analysis of internal investigations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
合规事务内部调查:法律职业特权在欧洲扮演什么角色?
信息是了解企业可能存在的不法行为的关键。当出现不当行为的指控时,管理层通常会邀请外部律师进行内部调查,因为法律专业特权被视为保护信息的关键。在英国脱欧后的欧盟,这种特权的客观范围正在辩论中,而与英国的发展几乎没有一致。本文将探讨对法律职业特权理解上日益加深的分歧可能意味着什么。它提出了一个政策模型,总结了英国和德国的最新发展,并得出了一些精炼的结论,以供对内部调查进行更广泛的比较分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Business Law Review
European Business Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: The mission of the European Business Law Review is to provide a forum for analysis and discussion of business law, including European Union law and the laws of the Member States and other European countries, as well as legal frameworks and issues in international and comparative contexts. The Review moves freely over the boundaries that divide the law, and covers business law, broadly defined, in public or private law, domestic, European or international law. Our topics of interest include commercial, financial, corporate, private and regulatory laws with a broadly business dimension. The Review offers current, authoritative scholarship on a wide range of issues and developments, featuring contributors providing an international as well as a European perspective. The Review is an invaluable source of current scholarship, information, practical analysis, and expert guidance for all practising lawyers, advisers, and scholars dealing with European business law on a regular basis. The Review has over 25 years established the highest scholarly standards. It distinguishes itself as open-minded, embracing interests that appeal to the scholarly, practitioner and policy-making spheres. It practices strict routines of peer review. The Review imposes no word limit on submissions, subject to the appropriateness of the word length to the subject under discussion.
期刊最新文献
Article: Legislation Comment: Considerations on the Digital Markets Act, the Way to a Fair and Open Digital Environment Article: Open-Price Contracts Under the CISG: The Law in Action Article: EU Law and the Member States’ Competence to Regulate the Operation of Collaborative Economy Platforms – Where Do We Stand after the Digital Services Act Article: The Systemic Importance of Asset Managers: A Case Study for the Future of SIFI Regulation Article: Codes of Conduct in German Employment Relationships – A Measure to Adequately Implementing Compliance and Data Protection?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1