Lawyers and systemic risk in finance: could (and should) the legal profession contribute to macroprudential regulation?

IF 1.4 Q1 LAW Legal Ethics Pub Date : 2016-01-02 DOI:10.1080/1460728x.2016.1189115
Joanna Gray
{"title":"Lawyers and systemic risk in finance: could (and should) the legal profession contribute to macroprudential regulation?","authors":"Joanna Gray","doi":"10.1080/1460728x.2016.1189115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The aim of this paper is twofold. Firstly, to examine questions about the role and responsibilities of transaction lawyers working in the financial sector that, it is argued here, deserve closer scrutiny than they have hitherto received since the banking and economic crisis of 2008. It considers the manner in which the conduct of such lawyers in the pre-crisis financial markets may have played a particular role in contributing to the sources of latent risk that bore systemic fruit in 2008. It poses the question, ‘Could (and should) they have acted differently?’. The first section concludes that there are strong and persuasive arguments both for and against reorienting the responsibilities of the transaction lawyer to include some obligation to take account of the risk to the financial system which the transactions they are conducting for their clients may pose. Secondly, this paper explores ways in which, nonetheless, financial sector lawyers could – and indeed should – be expected to play a part in the efforts of UK regulators who do now have a clear legislative obligation (with all the weight of public expectation that accompanies such a mandate) to detect, minimise and prevent systemic risk erupting again in the financial sector.","PeriodicalId":42194,"journal":{"name":"Legal Ethics","volume":"19 1","pages":"122 - 144"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/1460728x.2016.1189115","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1460728x.2016.1189115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT The aim of this paper is twofold. Firstly, to examine questions about the role and responsibilities of transaction lawyers working in the financial sector that, it is argued here, deserve closer scrutiny than they have hitherto received since the banking and economic crisis of 2008. It considers the manner in which the conduct of such lawyers in the pre-crisis financial markets may have played a particular role in contributing to the sources of latent risk that bore systemic fruit in 2008. It poses the question, ‘Could (and should) they have acted differently?’. The first section concludes that there are strong and persuasive arguments both for and against reorienting the responsibilities of the transaction lawyer to include some obligation to take account of the risk to the financial system which the transactions they are conducting for their clients may pose. Secondly, this paper explores ways in which, nonetheless, financial sector lawyers could – and indeed should – be expected to play a part in the efforts of UK regulators who do now have a clear legislative obligation (with all the weight of public expectation that accompanies such a mandate) to detect, minimise and prevent systemic risk erupting again in the financial sector.
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
律师和金融系统风险:法律职业能够(也应该)为宏观审慎监管做出贡献吗?
本文的目的是双重的。首先,研究有关在金融领域工作的交易律师的角色和责任的问题,本文认为,这些问题应该受到比2008年银行业和经济危机以来迄今为止更严格的审查。报告认为,在危机前的金融市场中,此类律师的行为方式可能在助长潜在风险来源方面发挥了特殊作用,这些潜在风险在2008年产生了系统性后果。它提出了一个问题,“他们可以(也应该)采取不同的行动吗?”第一部分的结论是,支持和反对重新定位交易律师的责任,包括一些义务,考虑到他们为客户进行的交易可能对金融体系构成的风险,都有强有力的和有说服力的论据。其次,本文探讨了一些方法,尽管如此,金融业律师可以——而且确实应该——在英国监管机构的努力中发挥作用,这些监管机构现在确实有明确的立法义务(伴随着这样一项授权的公众期望的所有权重),以发现、最小化和防止金融部门再次爆发系统性风险。
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
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
期刊最新文献
Between Continuity and Change in the Italian Legal Profession – Boutique Law Firms as the Last Bastion of Professionalism Liberal egalitarianism and critical legal studies: articles of conciliation Consequentialism and problem of role morality in legal ethics Should judges be temperate in their speech? Loyalty to client, conviction, or constitution? The moral responsibility of public professionals under illiberal state pressures
×
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