Bressler Risk Blog

Hat tip to the folks at AON, who just hosted their Law Firm Symposium and were kind enough to post an extensive set of speaking slides, materials, and references for those of us not in the room where it all happened. Those are all available on this overview page.

There are several risk related resources relevant to readers I’ll highlight below for those who don’t want to parse the entire page. And while several are a few years old (to be generous), I suspect folks will still be interested as I am:

New Business Intake (and Outtake)

• The Aon Client Intake Survey, by Matthew K. Corbin
• What Lawyers Can Say in Motions to Withdraw, by Matthew K. Corbin
• Dishonest or Unworthy Clients: Pink Flags, by Douglas R. Richmond
• Risk-Related Thoughts on the Corporate Transparency Act, by Matthew K. Corbin
• Core Concepts for Evaluating Concurrent Conflicts of Interest, by Matthew K. Corbin

Client Risk

• Avoiding Professional Liability and Responsibility Traps in Transactional Practice
• Taking a Closer Look at Scope of Representation and Related Issues, by Matthew K. Corbin

Lateral Hiring

• Looking Again at Lateral Hiring Risk, by Douglas R. Richmond
• Lateral Hiring Red Flags, by Douglas R. Richmond
• A Departing Lawyer Checklist, by Douglas R. Richmond

Personnel and Partner Risk

• “Partner Problems” PowerPoint Presentation
• The Right to Suspend Law Firm Partners Pending Internal Investigations, by Mark A. Webster
• Expelling Law Firm Partners

International/UK Practice

• [Slides] How Global Law Firms Navigate the Increasingly Complex Regulatory Environment in the U.K. and the Effect on International Offices
• Useful Links to Additional Resources

Law Firm General Counsels Discussion

• Session Slides
• The Aon General Counsel Survey, by Matthew K. Corbin
• Touring Deposition Conflicts by Rail, by Douglas R. Richmond
• Essential Principles for Law Firm General Counsel, by Douglas R. Richmond

Insurance

• A Review of the Most Recent Aon LPL Claims Data, by Mark A. Webster
• How Underwriters Evaluate and Price Law Firm Risk

“Pras Michel of Fugees seeks new trial, contends former attorney used AI for closing argument” —

• “Fugees star Pras Michel, who was convicted in April on charges of conspiring to make straw campaign donations, witness tampering and acting as an unregistered foreign agent for China, appears to be breaking new legal ground by calling for a new trial by claiming his defense attorneys allegedly relied on artificial intelligence to compile their final argument for the jury.”
• “In a withering motion filed Monday night with a federal judge in Washington, Michel’s new attorneys argued that his Los Angeles-based lawyer David Kenner relied on the fledgling technology at critical points in Michel’s trial, contributing to ‘prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel.'”
• “Kenner ‘used an experimental artificial intelligence (AI) program to draft the closing argument, ignoring the best arguments and conflating the charged schemes, and he then publicly boasted that the AI program ‘turned hours or days of legal work into seconds,’’ Michel’s new defense team from D.C.-based ArentFox Schiff wrote.”
• “‘It is now apparent that Kenner and his co-counsel appear to have had an undisclosed financial stake in the AI program, and they experimented with it during Michel’s trial so they could issue a press release afterward promoting the program — a clear conflict of interest.'”
• “Zeidenberg pointed to a press release a firm called Eyelevel appears to have issued in May, which included a photo of Michel and boasted that the company’s technology ‘made history last week, becoming the first use of generative AI in a federal trial.’ The release quotes Kenner calling the AI tool ‘absolute game changer for complex litigation.'”
• “Beyond the claims related to AI, the motion also makes a slew of other arguments criticizing Kenner’s handling of the case. Michel’s new attorneys argue that Kenner had a conflict of interest due to potential contempt of court citation over claims the defense leaked stamped grand jury exhibits to a Bloomberg reporter just prior to the start of the trial.”

“Bar Cybersecurity Panel Considers Data Privacy Certification Course” —

• “The Cybersecurity & Privacy Law Committee has agreed to sponsor an intensive, two-day training seminar that would help Florida lawyers become internationally certified in data privacy.”
• “‘I think we should be thinking about making as many Florida Bar members IAPP certified as possible,’ said Co-Chair Franklin Zemel, referring to the International Association of Privacy Professionals. ‘I’ve been through the training in the past. They’re top-notch in every way.'”
• “Although no agreement has been reached, the proposal would have Privacy Pro offer Florida Bar members a two-day, in-person training seminar at the Hilton Orlando Bonnet Creek, two days before the Bar convenes its Annual Convention there on June 19.”
  “Some committee members expressed a concern that the test, which requires 40 hours of preparation, might be too rigorous for lawyers who aren’t tech proficient.”

Blog reader and former chair of the Minnesota Lawyers Board Chuck Lundberg has published: “Quandaries & Quagmires: It’s important to know when not to use email” —

• “‘When not to use email?’ is a relatively recent ethical inquiry, barely 20 years old. Do you remember the practice of law before email? (Depending on the size of the law firm, email use became prevalent at various stages during the 1990s.) Back then, the only ethics issue was whether information about a client’s matter could EVER be sent by unencrypted e-mail without violating the ethics rules.”
• “It was not until 1999 that the ABA ethics committee acknowledged that a lawyer may transmit some information relating to the representation of a client by unencrypted email over the internet without violating the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. ABA Formal Opinion No. 99-413, May 10, 1999, (citing at footnote 40 an impressive full-page string cite of numerous state opinions and commentary to the same effect in 1996 – 1998). “
• “Today, however, email is so commonplace, so easy to use, that emailing reflexively — without even thinking about it — has become the new default. This can be a serious problem. Precisely because email is the default, lawyers are all too complacent about best practices for using email effectively and proficiently. Email can be a great communication tool, but it can also be dangerous. ”
  “Avoid email when:
  • The message is extremely important or confidential and you cannot risk it falling into the wrong hands.
  • The message is emotional or sensitive or in nature.
  • When a back-and-forth conversation will be required, or when the receiver deserves the opportunity to give immediate feedback or response.”
• “Consider this real-life scenario from the Ethical Emergencies column:
  • Sally Associate has just realized that she has made a serious and possibly damaging mistake in one of her client’s cases. [Think missing a mandatory deadline — a statute of limitations or an expert witness disclosure order.] Sally is very concerned that there may be ethics or malpractice issues, and she needs to talk with someone at the firm immediately about the mistake, about what to do now, about whether disclosure or other action is required, etc.
  • Before we get to the email issue, think about this: To whom at the firm should Sally report this emergency? Her supervising partner on the case? Her mentor? The firm’s managing partner? The firm’s ethics partner?
  • The only correct answer on these facts is the ethics partner.”
• “Accordingly, Sally should call or meet with the ethics partner immediately. But she should not use email. Not to report the incident, or to describe or explain the problem, or to give the details, or to answer the inevitable ‘how did this happen?’ questions, etc.”
• “But nothing in writing until then. No email. Always remember what the ‘e’ in email stands for (‘Exhibit’). The sender should imagine that the transmitted message or document has an exhibit sticker on the bottom right.”

Quite excited to announce that the 2023 Law Firm Risk Staffing Compensation Survey report is now fresh off the presses! (And now on file with the US Copyright Office.) Coming in at 15 pages, this year’s exercise builds on last year’s success in several ways:

• As hoped, we saw strong participation from “director-level” risk leaders, and have included a section on those salary details.
• What’s more, overall participation shot up from last year. In 2022, we saw 80+ participants contribute data on 375+ individual risk staff positions. In 2023, we saw 126 participants share data on 517 risk positions. (That’s a 50% jump in participation and a 37% increase in data — for those of us who have putting everything into Excel over the past few weeks.)

I’d like to thank everyone who participated. I hope the results and analysis provide fresh insight and support to those looking for greater clarity on industry compensation practices and trends.

As many readers have shared over the past year, this project is creating value, insight, and opportunity on several fronts:

• Risk and operational leaders are using this data to advocate for and ensure that their teams’ compensation is kept in line with industry averages.
• HR and hiring managers are using this data to inform their staff recruiting and review policies.
• Individual contributors are using this data to self benchmark and support their personal career efforts and growth.

A note on distribution: 

• If you’re a “manager” participant, providing data on your team/multiple positions, you’ll be receiving the report in your inbox today (if you haven’t already).
• If you’re an “individual” participant, providing data on your position, you’ll be receiving your personal benchmark shortly as well.
• Finally, if you/your law firm did not participate in the survey, we’re making copies available for a fee. Please get in touch for details. 

As more than one risk leader shared with me, several of you are looking to this data to benchmark your existing team’s compensation, inform potential adjustments (it’s budget season for many), and support future recruitment efforts. I hope the report doesn’t disappoint.

I’m quite interested in community response and feedback — particularly if there’s appetite and interest in a 2024 follow up exercise. (I already have notes and thoughts on where we might go from here…)

Thanks!

“Ex-ArentFox client claims law firm secretly prepared to sue it on rival’s behalf” —

• “A government contractor has sued its former counsel at U.S. law firm ArentFox Schiff, alleging the firm failed to disclose that it was preparing a lawsuit against it on behalf of one of the contractor’s business rivals.”
• “Peraton, a contractor owned by private-equity firm Veritas Capital, alleged that ArentFox secretly fed information about it to CACI International, another ArentFox client. ArentFox used that information to help prepare a lawsuit against Peraton on behalf of CACI, Peraton alleged.”
• “The law firm shot back against Peraton’s claims in a statement, saying the government contractor ‘knowingly consented to the firm pursuing litigation against it.'”
• “It added, ‘Peraton is a sophisticated company whose own general counsel signed the consent on its behalf.'”
• “ArentFox and Brand represented Peraton in licensing and sponsorship deals, netting the firm nearly $500,000 fees. Meanwhile, ArentFox was representing CACI in a trade secrets lawsuit in Virginia state court against two of CACI’s former employees, the Peraton lawsuit alleged.”
• “Peraton alleged that ArentFox came to it with a conflict waiver under the pretense that the law firm was being served with a subpoena.”
• “‘Had Peraton known that Arent Fox wanted permission to investigate legal claims against Peraton, sue Peraton, disclose its confidential information to CACI, or participate in a government inquiry against Peraton, then Peraton never would have consented to such a waiver,’ the lawsuit said.”
• “Peraton signed off on the waiver in July 2022 and obtained a protective order that would limit the disclosure of its sensitive business information to ArentFox lawyers, not CACI. The lawsuit alleged that ArentFox had the order modified so that a pair of CACI executives could see the information from Peraton. ArentFox in its statement said it ‘certainly did not misuse any confidential Peraton information.'”

Follow up on this story: “Opioid Special Master Who Hit ‘Reply All’ Protected by Judicial Deliberative Privilege, Judge Rules” —

• “A federal judge, invoking a judicial privilege to freely deliberate on matters, refused to disqualify the special master in the opioid multidistrict litigation.”
• “In a Tuesday order, U.S. District Judge Dan Polster rejected a motion filed last month by two pharmacy benefit managers to disqualify David Cohen after the special master inadvertently sent an email to lawyers in the case. Cohen, who meant to send the email to himself, has been a special master in the opioid multidistrict litigation since 2018.”
• “Polster sided with the plaintiffs’ executive committee in concluding that the email falls under the judicial deliberative privilege, which protects confidential communications among judges and their staff.”
• “‘Special Master Cohen’s email, which consisted entirely of his own mental impressions, personal notes, and private musings about the submitted status reports, was unquestionably a privileged judicial deliberative memorandum to himself,’ Polster, who sits in the Northern District of Ohio, ruled.”
• “He added, ‘For the judicial system to function, judges must view the arguments presented to them with an appropriate degree of skepticism. If judges were subject to accusations of bias and potential disqualification based solely on private, skeptical thought about a party’s position, there could be no judges.'”
• “Polster questioned the motivations behind the disqualification motion, in which the pharmacy benefit managers ‘repeatedly and misleadingly attempt to convert the Special Master’s private thoughts into public comments.’ Such actions, he wrote, did not follow the standards of professional conduct outlined in his protective order.”
• “In a footnote, he added: ‘The court also notes that, were the email from opposing counsel rather than the Special Master, and the PBMs responded that not only would they not allow counsel to claw back their inadvertent disclosure but intended to use it to attempt to gain some tactical advantage in litigation, such conduct could be the subject of a motion for sanctions.'”

“Citing Conflicts as Merger Looms, Former SDNY Judge Leaves Stroock for Boies Schiller” —

• “While Stroock & Stroock & Lavan plots a potential merger with Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, a former New York federal judge of 22 years isn’t hanging around to find out how the tie-up might affect her practice.”
• “Boies Schiller Flexner on Friday morning announced the hiring of former U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin, who arrives at the firm’s New York office as of counsel after seven years at Stroock.”
• “Since moving to private practice, Scheindlin has practiced as a neutral in mediations and arbitrations as well as a court-appointed special master, mock trial and appellate judge, and expert witness.”
• “In an interview, Scheindlin said she had been ‘very happy’ at Stroock, but was already having to decline nearly a third of incoming inquiries due to conflicts with the Big Law firm’s numerous institutional clients. “I know their intention is to merge with a bigger firm, so that would just increase the number of institutional clients and the number of conflicts, which would not be good for me,” she said.”
• “In contrast, Boies Schiller’s exclusive focus on litigation presented fewer conflicts and an opportunity to contribute to investigations, mock trial work and criminal defense work, Scheindlin said. ‘It was an opportunity that couldn’t be missed,’ said Scheindlin. ‘That means this is the right firm for me at the right time.'”
• ‘The pandemic has only accelerated the growth of alternative dispute resolution, Scheindlin said. ‘Parties often put arbitration clauses in their agreements, in those clauses they have to mediate before they arbitrate,’ she said. ‘I know it’s an expanding field at all times, especially in the commercial context, and I do mostly commercial arbitrations and mediations.'”

“US SEC sues auditor Prager Metis over alleged independence violations” —

• “The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday sued accounting firm Prager Metis for alleged auditor independence violations related to a template it used when signing on clients.”
• “Between December 2017 and October 2020, Prager Metis improperly added indemnification provisions to engagement letters to clients for more than 200 audits and other work, the SEC said. This prevented the firm from having the independence required by law, it said.”
• “‘These allegations arise solely from template indemnification language used several years ago that was never enforced or sought to be enforced, and the SEC does not allege this language affected the quality of our audits,’ the [Prager] statement said. ‘Prager takes its independence obligations seriously.'”
• “Prager Metis continued to sign engagement letters with those provisions even after firm staff were aware of the issue, the SEC said.”
• “Prager Metis was one of the auditors for the FTX Group, according to a court filing. The SEC’s allegations do not relate to the FTX matter”

“Judge Boosts Damages, Sanctions Quinn Emanuel In Patent Case” —

• “NortonLifeLock Inc. must pay Columbia University $481 million and cover some of the university’s attorneys’ fees after a Virginia federal judge more than doubled a jury’s award for patent infringement damages and held in civil contempt Norton’s lawyers at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.”
• “Judge M. Hannah Lauck of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ordered the attorneys’ fees as a sanction after the law firm allegedly failed to follow her order regarding a perceived conflict of interest in the firm’s representation of both Norton and a key witness.”
• “Lauck sealed opinions explaining her orders until Oct. 12 to give both sides a chance to redact confidential information. She also gave them 30 days to reach a stipulation on the attorneys’ fees award.”
• “In May 2022, a jury determined that NortonLifeLock—formerly known as Symantec Corp. and currently doing business as Gen Digital Inc.—willfully infringed patented technology involving computer security and intrusion detection software developed by researchers at Columbia University in New York City.”
• “Before trial, Lauck ordered Quinn Emanuel to provide written descriptions of information it obtained from French researcher Marc Dacier, a former top Symantec executive, during the time the law firm represented both Dacier and Norton from 2017 through 2020, according to court documents.”
• “In court filings, the lawyers explained they arranged for Dacier to give a deposition in Europe that wouldn’t have otherwise taken place because he’d already left the company. But Norton and its lawyers stressed they didn’t control Dacier, who they claimed was unwilling to travel from his current home in Saudi Arabia to testify at the US trial.”
• “Quinn Emanuel initially cited attorney-client privilege in refusing to comply with Lauck’s order to disclose Dacier’s communications. But the firm subsequently provided a summary of information Dacier shared, and jurors were shown Dacier’s videotaped deposition.”
• “Columbia accused Norton and Quinn Emanuel of preventing Dacier from testifying live and lying that he was ‘unavailable,’ arguing they knew his views hurt Norton’s case, according to a filing by the university. Lauck agreed and called Quinn Emanuel’s simultaneous representation of Norton and a key adverse witness an ‘appalling’ conflict of interest, according to court records. She gave jurors a ‘missing witness’ instruction, which let them assume Dacier’s testimony would’ve harmed Norton’s defense.”
• “‘Quinn Emanuel respectfully disagrees with the district court’s finding and will be making our legal response in due course,’ the firm said in a statement.”

“Rio Vista council rejects city law firm representing Flannery Associates” —

• “Rio Vista’s [California] City Council voted against consenting to the law firm who represents the city also working for Flannery Associates LLC, the company buying thousands of acres of land in Solano County to build a new city.”
• “The decision comes after the law firm Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann and Girard has worked with the city for a decade, but asked city leaders to also work with Flannery Associates to help arrange and document the water supply for the project.”
• “The controversial group secretly bought up over 50,000 acres of land since 2017 to build a new city in Solano County. The land is mostly in and around Rio Vista and Travis Air Force Base, making Flannery Associates the largest land owner in the county.”
• “Rio Vista residents opposed any sort of arrangements because of the conflict of interest, and not seeing any benefit of giving Flannery Associates influence over the local water supply.”
• “A representative with a law firm says they brought this to city leaders because of conflict of interest in the future. But added this would be a benefit for the city as they have a familiar face to work with when speaking with Flannery Associates.”

For more general background on this one, see: “Who is behind Flannery Associates, the mystery California land buyers?“

“Former lawyer cannot represent his wife in personal injury case, says NS Supreme Court” —

• “The Nova Scotia Supreme Court has refused to allow a former barrister to represent his wife in a personal injury lawsuit.”
• “The defendant in the action, Fenwick Holdings Limited, motioned to remove William as Margaret’s representative. Fenwick argued that William was in a conflict of interest and could not represent Margaret. Fenwick also asserted that as William is the plaintiff’s husband, he has a financial interest in the outcome of the litigation. He was also a fact witness to the plaintiff’s fall, and consequently, he will have made observations relevant to the plaintiff’s damages claim. Fenwick argued that a lawyer cannot be a witness and counsel in the same proceeding.”
• “The plaintiff, Margaret, argued that William was representing her in a personal or private capacity. She contended that discharging him would deprive her of her choice of counsel and would impose time and monetary penalties on her. She argued that it would be difficult and counterproductive to represent her claim without William’s legal training and that hiring outside counsel would be expensive.”
• “The Nova Scotia Supreme Court ultimately ruled that William failed to meet the statutory requirements to be eligible to practise law in the province. The court noted that he resigned from the Society in 2010 and has not been a member since. The court pointed out that even if he was not acting for a fee, he stood to receive indirect compensation, considering that the plaintiff is his wife and any monetary award she might receive would be of joint benefit.”
• “The court further explained that the relationship between William and the plaintiff may give rise to a conflict of interest based on s. 34 of the Code of Conduct, which requires lawyers to avoid conflicts of interest. The Society noted that a conflict may arise when ‘A lawyer has a sexual or close personal relationship with a client. Such a relationship may conflict with the lawyer’s duty to provide objective, disinterested professional advice to the client.'”
• “In addition to the potential conflict based on his relationship with the plaintiff, the court found that Jodan was potentially in a conflict based on his connection to the substantive issues at trial. The court explained that Jordan had recorded observations about the impact of the plaintiff’s injuries on many aspects of her health. He had sworn to those observations in an affidavit and recorded extensive detailed observations in a ‘pain diary.’ The court emphasized the common law prohibition against allowing a lawyer to appear as a witness while acting as counsel.”

“The Lawyers Sam Bankman-Fried Once Trusted Are Drawing Criticism” —

• “Mr. Bankman-Fried and his allies have blasted Sullivan & Cromwell, the New York law firm managing FTX’s bankruptcy, for its tangled relationship with the crypto exchange.”
• “Just before FTX collapsed in November, one of its outside lawyers at the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell emailed a colleague at another firm, insisting that the cryptocurrency exchange’s finances were stable.”
• “Four days later, FTX filed for bankruptcy. Mr. Dietderich quickly arranged for Sam Bankman-Fried, the exchange’s founder, to step down so that a new chief executive, John Jay Ray III, a specialist in corporate turnarounds, could lead the company. When Mr. Ray needed lawyers to manage the bankruptcy, a lucrative assignment, he asked a judge to appoint the same ones who had helped get him the job: Sullivan & Cromwell.”
• “Now, with Mr. Bankman-Fried set to go on trial next month on fraud charges stemming from FTX’s failure, Sullivan & Cromwell’s tangled history with the exchange is drawing scrutiny — especially from Mr. Bankman-Fried’s lawyers and family.”
• “For months, Mr. Bankman-Fried has attacked Sullivan & Cromwell in court papers and on social media, arguing that the firm’s lawyers set him up as the fall guy for FTX’s implosion while downplaying their own involvement with the exchange. The dispute became even more personal this week when FTX sued Mr. Bankman-Fried’s parents, seeking to claw back millions of dollars and claiming the exchange had operated like a ‘family business.'”
• “A spokesman for FTX said Mr. Bankman-Fried’s claims were ‘a biased story line’ intended to unfairly blame the professionals trying to recover money. A representative for Sullivan & Cromwell declined to comment. In court, the law firm has said that FTX was never a ‘regular client,’ and that the firm had put in place procedures to guard against conflicts of interest during the bankruptcy.”
• “In January, the U.S. trustee assigned to FTX’s bankruptcy raised the prospect of removing Sullivan & Cromwell from the case, citing its failure to disclose all of its past work for FTX. Around the same time, four U.S. senators released a letter arguing that Sullivan & Cromwell had a conflict of interest because the firm might bear some responsibility for FTX’s failure. But the trustee backed down after the firm made a more detailed disclosure, and a judge allowed the lawyers to continue overseeing the bankruptcy, saying he saw ‘no evidence of any actual conflict.'”
• “Mr. Bankman-Fried has remained fixated on Sullivan & Cromwell. His lawyers have argued that the firm is providing evidence to the prosecutors that reflects poorly on Mr. Bankman-Fried, while withholding material that could help the defense. Prosecutors have denied that claim, writing in court papers that FTX and its lawyers ‘have been responding to the government’s document requests voluntarily.'”
• “Rebecca Roiphe, a former prosecutor and a professor at New York Law School, said it was fair to raise questions about potential conflicts of interest when a law firm represented a company both before and during a government investigation that might involve related work. ‘But this is not uncommon and doesn’t necessarily prove wrongdoing,’ she said.”

“Law Society of Scotland rejects proposals for a single UK-wide anti-money laundering supervisor” —

• “The Law Society of Scotland has rejected proposals for a single UK-wide anti-money laundering (AML) supervisor, saying a one-size fits all approach would be a ‘regressive step’ in efforts to combat economic crime.”
• “The Law Society has said a number of proposals in the HM Treasury consultation on the future of the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing supervisory regime, risk damaging progress already achieved and could also fail to meet its stated aims of increased system effectiveness, system co-ordination and feasibility.”
• “The Society has expressed support for further powers to be given to the Office of Professional Body AML Supervision (OPBAS), if those powers would lead to increased effectiveness, and does not oppose reform consolidating anti-money laundering supervision on a devolved basis.”
• “Graham Mackenzie, Head of AML at the Law Society of Scotland, said: ‘We fully support change that will enhance the current AML regime and support the UK’s economic crime plan. It is, however, crucial that any reform introduced does not interfere with the independence of the legal profession, and also recognises the distinct legal and regulatory frameworks which exist across the devolved nations.'”

“How PwC failed to identify or deal with tax leaks scandal” —

• “Legal inquiries ordered by PwC Australia into its tax leaks scandal found a ‘combination of multiple failings’ by individuals and the firm’s governance, culture and accountability systems.”
• “A summary of reviews by law firms King & Wood Mallesons, Allens and Linklaters concluded that the scandal – which has rocked PwC’s local operation and heightened scrutiny of the multibillion-dollar consulting sector – was due to a litany of shortcomings and missed opportunities to address problems earlier.”
• “The tax leaks issues date back to 2013, when former international tax partner Peter Collins triggered the scandal. Mr Collins shared confidential tax information with PwC personnel who used it to help clients sidestep Multinational Anti Avoidance Laws he was helping Treasury develop.”
• “‘There is no single answer to the question of why the breaches of confidentiality and conflicts occurred and were not discovered and addressed earlier. Rather, it appears to be the result of a combination of multiple failings as well as missed opportunities to address the issues at an earlier point in time,’ it says.”
• “There was a ‘failure of individuals to identify and mitigate potential conflicts of interest’ inherent in the firm providing advice on how to create tax laws while also providing advice to clients on how to respond to the same laws.”
• “‘Fundamentally, the confidentiality breaches occurred due to PwC Australia’s failure to recognise and take steps to mitigate the inherent conflict of interest that existed from PwC Australia advising Treasury on the implementation of tax legislation while, at the same time, assisting clients to structure their business operations to comply with the new laws,’ it states.”
• “Macquarie Business School Emeritus Professor James Guthrie said the report released did not take into account information that was not publicly available. ‘It has taken a decade for PwC Australia to admit its internal failings concerning governance structure and risk management in public,’ he said.”

For more, see: “How confidential tax information was shared at PwC.“