Risks and Threats Corruption Legal Profession

8/3/2019 Risks and Threats Corruption Legal Profession

1/32

Risks and threats

of corruption and

the legal profession

Sy 2010


2/32

www.anticorruptionstrategy.org


3/32

Risks and threats of corruption and

the legal profession: Survey 2010

Contents

Introduction 6

A.Aboutthesurvey 6

B.Surveymethodology 7

C.Abouttheauthors 7

Survey results 9

A.Perceptionsoftheimpactofcorruptiononthelegalprofessionathomeandabroad 9

1. PercePtionS of the imPact of corruPtion on the legal ProfeSSion at home 9

2. PercePtionS of the imPact of corruPtion on the legal ProfeSSion

in neighbouring juriSdictionS 11

B.Risksassociatedwithinternationalbriberyandcorruption 12

1. Perceived imPact of corruPtion on foreign inveStment 12

2. buSineSS and comPetitive riSkS 12

C.Levelofawarenessoftheinternationalanti-corruptionregulatoryframework 16

1. awareneSS of international anti-corruPtion inStrumentS 16

2. awareneSS of national legiSlation with extraterritorial aPPlication 18

D.Theroleoflocalbarassociations,lawsocietiesandlawrmsinaddressing

thechallengeofcorruption 20

1. bar aSSociationS and law SocietieS 20

2. law firmS 21

Conclusions and recommendations 25

A.Summaryofconclusions 25

B.Recommendations 25

Annex 1 27

Annex 2 28

Acknowledgements 29


4/32

4 anti-corruPtion Strateg for the legal ProfeSSion

List of Charts and Boxes

Charts

Chart1 Doyouthinkcorruptionisanissueinthelegalprofessioninyourjurisdiction?

(byregions) 9


(bycountries) 10


(byage) 10

Chart4 Doyouthinkcorruptionisanissueinthelegalprofessioninneighbouring

jurisdictions? 11

Chart5 Haveyoueverbeenapproachedtoactasanagentormiddlemanina

transactionthatcouldreasonablybesuspectedtoinvolveinternationalcorruption,eg,foreignbribery? 12

Chart6 Inyouropinion,whatproportionoflegalprofessionalsinyourjurisdiction

wouldbewillingtoparticipateorfacilitateinternationaltransactionsthat

theyrecogniseascorrupt,eg,foreignbribery? 13

Chart7 Doyouknowofanylegalprofessionalsinyourjurisdictionwhohavebeen

involvedininternationalcorruptionoffences,eg,foreignbribery? 14

Chart8 Doyoubelievethatyouhavelostbusinesstootherlawrmsorindividual

lawyerswhoarepreparedtomakeillicitpaymentstogovernmentofcialsonbehalfoforforthebenetofforeigncompanies/investors? 14

Chart9 Awarenessofinternationalconventionsoncorruptionandbriberybyregion 16

Chart10 Awarenessofinternationalconventionsbystateparties 17

Chart11 Howresponsestopleaseselecttheinternationalanti-corruptioninstruments

youarefamiliarwitharedistributedwiththepracticeareaofrespondents 18

Chart12 Doesyourbarassociationorlawsocietyprovidespecicanti-corruption

guidelinesforlegalprofessionals? 20

Chart13 Doesyourbarassociationorlawsocietyguidelinesaddressspecicallythe

issueofinternationalcorruption,eg,foreignbribery? 21

Chart14 Wheredoesdealingwithcorruptionandforeignbriberyrisksrankwithin

theprioritiesofyourlawrm? 21

Chart15 Howresponsestowheredoesdealingwithcorruptionandforeignbribery

risksrankwithintheprioritiesofyourlawrmaredistributedwithrespect

tothepositionsheldbyrespondents 22

Chart16 Doesyourlawrmhaveaclearandspecicanti-corruptionpolicy? 22


5/32

riSkS and threatS of corruPtion and the legal ProfeSSion: Surve 2010 5

Chart17 Howresponsestodoesyourlawrmhaveaclearandspecicanti-corruption

policyaredistributedwithrespecttothepositionsheldbyrespondentsin

lawrms 23

Chart18 Approximatelywhatproportionofyourforeignclientsrequireyourrm

tocertifyanti-corruptioncompliance,eg,FCPAcompliance? 23

Chart19 Hasyourrmbeensubjecttoanti-corruptionoranti-moneylaunderingduediligenceconductedbyforeignclients? 24

Boxes

Box1 Majorndings 6

Box2 Distributionofrespondentsbygeographicalregion,ageandpositionintheirrms 7

Box3 Internationalanti-corruptioninstruments 15

Box4 Extraterritorialapplicationoftheoffenceofbribingaforeignpublicofcial 18

Box5 Awarenessandage 19


6/32


legal profession.1 As a consequence, lawyers may beat risk of violating this framework by, for example,their involvement as intermediaries in corrupt

transactions that would leave them exposed topossible criminal liability.To gain a better understanding of the

possible risks the legal profession faces in thisever-developing international anti-corruptionregulatory environment, an exploratory survey wasconducted among IBA members. The global survey

was designed as part of the Anti-Corruption Strategyfor the Legal Profession. Its objectives are: to explorethe level of awareness of the risks of corruption;to investigate the legal professions awareness ofthe tools available to mitigate these risks; and toexamine the role bar associations, law societies andlaw rms have in ensuring the legal profession isequipped to engage effectively in the internationalght against corruption.

The results of this survey were launched at the2010 IBA Annual Conference in Vancouver, Canada.

A. About the survey

In April 2010, the International Bar Association(IBA), in cooperation with the Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development (OECD)and the United Nations Ofce on Drugs and Crime(UNODC), launched the Anti-Corruption Strategy forthe Legal Profession, a project focusing on the rolelawyers play in ghting corruption in internationalbusiness transactions and the impact on thelegal practice of international anti-corruptioninstruments and associated implementing nationallegislation with extraterritorial application.

A powerful and developed internationalregulatory framework to combat corruption in allits forms is now in place. It includes international

legal instruments and national anti-corruptionlegislation that applies to corruption casesboth at home and abroad. Unfortunately, manylawyers remain unaware of the implications ofthis international anti-corruption regulatoryframework on both their legal practice and on the

Introduction

box 1 major findingS

Nearlyhalfofallrespondentsstatedcorruptionwasanissueinthelegalprofessionintheirownjurisdiction.Theproportionwas

evenhigherover70percentinthefollowingregions:CIS,Africa,LatinAmericaand,BalticStatesandEasternEurope.

Morethanafthofrespondentssaidtheyhaveormayhavebeenapproachedtoactasanagentormiddlemaninatransaction

thatcouldreasonablybesuspectedtoinvolveinternationalcorruption.Nearlyathirdofrespondentssaidalegalprofessional

theyknowhasbeeninvolvedininternationalcorruptionoffences.

Nearly30percentofrespondentssaidtheyhadlostbusinesstocorruptlawrmsorindividualswhohaveengagedin

internationalbriberyandcorruption.

Nearly40percentofrespondentshadneverheardofthemajorinternationalinstrumentsthatmakeuptheinternationalanti-

corruptionregulatoryframework,suchastheOECDAnti-BriberyConventionandtheUNConventionagainstCorruption.

Thelevelofawarenessoftheexistenceofanti-corruptionextraterritoriallegislationishigherthanthatoftheinternationallegal

instruments:60percentofsurveyrespondentswereawareoftheFCPAanditsscope,while30percentwereawareoftheUK

BriberyActanditsscope.

Atotalof42percentofrespondentsagreedthatnationalanti-corruptionlawsandregulationswereeffectiveinpreventing

bothinboundandoutboundinternationalcorruptioncomparedtoveyearsago.

Youngerrespondents(aged20to30years)were,onaverage,lessawareofinternationalanti-corruptionlawsandnational

legislationthanolderrespondents.

Only43percentofrespondentsrecognisedthattheirbarassociationsprovidesomekindofanti-corruptionguidanceforlegal

practitioners.Ofthese,onlyathirdsaidthatsuchguidancespecicallyaddressestheissueofinternationalcorruption.

Lessthan40percentofrespondentssaidanti-corruptionwasapriorityattheirlawrmandjustunderathirdsaidthattheir

rmsdonothaveaclearandspecicanti-corruptionpolicy.

Morethantwo-thirdsofrespondentssaidtheirlawrmshadnotbeensubjecttoanti-corruptionoranti-moneylaunderingdue

diligenceconductedbyforeignclients.


7/32


box 2 diStribution of reSPondentS b geograPhical region, age and PoSition in their firmS

Partner 67%

Associate 18%

Other 15%

Percentage of respondents by positions in the law firm

Age 20-30 11%Age 31-40 29%

Age 41-50 25%

Age 51-60 21%

Age 61 and over 14%

Percentage of respondents by age

Number of respondents

1-5

6-10

11-20

21-30

31 and above

No respondents

Number of responses Jurisdictions

1-5 Albania,Algeria,Austria,Azerbaijan,Barbados,Belgium,Bolivia,BosniaandHerzegovina,

Bulgaria,Cambodia,CaymanIslands,CostaRica,Croatia,Cyprus,CzechRepublic,Egypt,El

Salvador,Ethiopia,Finland,Georgia,Ghana,Guatemala,Honduras,Hungary,Iran,Ireland,

Israel,Kenya,SouthKorea,Kosovo,KyrgyzRepublic,Latvia,Lebanon,Liechtenstein,Lithuania,

Macedonia,Malaysia,Moldova,Nepal,Nicaragua,Oman,Pakistan,Panama,Paraguay,Poland,

Qatar,Romania,Singapore,Slovakia,Slovenia,SriLanka,Syria,Taiwan,Tanzania,Thailand,

Turkey,Uganda,Uruguay,Yemen,Zambia,Zimbabwe.

6-10 China,Colombia,Denmark,France,Italy,India,Japan,Mexico,Portugal,Russia,SouthAfrica,

UnitedArabEmirates,Venezuela.

11-20 Argentina,Australia,Brazil,Canada,Germany,Netherlands,Norway,Peru,Spain,Sweden,

Switzerland.

21-30 Chile,NewZealand,Nigeria.

31andabove HongKong,Ukraine,UnitedKingdom,UnitedStates.


8/32


C. About the authors

The survey and this report were prepared by the IBA,with input from the OECD and the UNODC. Thendings, interpretations and conclusions expresseddo not necessarily represent the views of the IBA,the OECD, the UNODC, or their member countries,including the States Party to the Convention on

Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Ofcials inInternational Business Transactions and the UNConvention against Corruption (UNCAC). The IBA,OECD and UNODC do not guarantee the accuracyof the data included in this publication and acceptno responsibility for any consequences of their use.The term country or jurisdiction does not implyany judgment by the OECD or the UN as to the legalor other status of any territorial entity.

Notes

1 In this report, the international anti-corruption regulatoryframework is used to refer to the following body ofinternational law relating to anti-corruption: the OECDConvention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Ofcialsin International Business Transactions (OECD Anti-BriberyConvention), the United Nations Convention againstCorruption (UNCAC), the Inter-American Conventionagainst Corruption (IACAC), the African Union Conventionon Preventing and Combating Corruption, the Council ofEurope Criminal Law Convention on Corruption and theCouncil of Europe Civil Law Convention on Corruption, and

Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union.2 A common international corruption scenario which has

an impact on the legal community involves a companyapproaching a law rm or lawyer to act as agent or middlemanin a corrupt transaction that crosses borders in some mannerand which directly or indirectly involves government ofcials.

This corruption may take the form of bribery, facilitationpayments, fraud, money laundering, among other potentiallycriminal conduct.

3 Of the 642 private practitioners who started the survey, only574 of these completed it in full. In the analysis that follows,

we use the maximum number of responses available for eachquestion.

B. Survey methodology

The survey was designed with the assistance ofanti-corruption experts including ofcers andmembers of the IBA Anti-Corruption Committeeand OECD and UNODC ofcials. It assessed legalprofessionals views on a number of importantissues, including:

Perceptions of the risks of corruption in theirown jurisdiction

Awareness of the international and domesticinstruments pertaining to transnational briberyand their implications for the legal profession

Awareness of the extraterritorial application ofsome domestic anti-corruption legislation eg,US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) andUK Bribery Act (which is yet to come into force)

Effectiveness of national laws and regulations toprevent corruption

Level of understanding that legal professionals

have about their role in the prevention ofinternational corruption2

Vulnerability of the legal profession tointernational bribery and corruption in their

jurisdiction and in neighbouring jurisdictions Measures taken by local bar associations to tackle

corruptionThe survey represents a rst attempt to shed lighton the above issues, while care has to be taken

when analysing the results, given that the sampleof respondents is not statistically representative ofthe countries covered by the survey. In total, 642professionals from 95 jurisdictions participated,3

a list of the countries in each geographical regionused in this report is given in Annex I. Surveyrespondents were invited to answer questions onlinebetween 15 June and 5 July 2010. The respondentsrepresented members of the legal profession

working in private practice in the following areas:practice groups; corporate law; criminal law; disputeresolution; energy, environment, natural resourcesand infrastructure law; nancial services; intellectualproperty, communication and technology;international sales, franchising and product law;maritime and aviation; public law; real estate; and

taxation. The complete questionnaire can be viewedonline athttp://tinyurl.com/ACStrategy.


9/32


The role which local bar associations, lawsocieties and law rms play in addressing thechallenge of corruption in the legal profession

(Section D)

A. Perceptions of the impact of corruption

on the legal profession at home and

abroad

1.Perceptionsoftheimpactofcorruptionon

thelegalprofessionathome

Survey respondents were asked whethercorruption is an issue in the legal profession in

their own jurisdiction. Chart 1 represents theafrmative responses received, which are groupedby world regions.

In the globalised economy of the early 21stcentury, an uncountable number of internationalbusiness transactions take place every day. Each

poses an array of new opportunities for lawyers,but also challenges. Lawyers involvement in thesetransactions exposes them to the risks and threats ofinternational corruption. Unfortunately, however,lawyers often remain unaware of these risks andthreats. In recognition of this lack of awareness,this survey was organised to address the followingfour subjects: The legal professions perception of the impact

of corruption on their profession at home andabroad (Section A of the report)

Perceptions of the risks associated withinternational corruption for the legal profession(Section B)

Levels of awareness of the international anti-corruption regulatory framework that exists toaddress these risks (Section C)

Yes

CIS

Baltic States and Eastern Europe

Latin America

Africa

Asia w/o Hong Kong and Singapore

Middle East

UNCAC Parties

EU w/o Nordic countries

Asia

European Union

OECD Convention Parties

USA and Canada

Nordic countries

Australasia

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Note: Respondents could answer yes or no.

Survey results

chart 1 do ou think corruPtion iS an iSSue in the legal ProfeSSion in our juriSdiction?


10/32


cent of respondents from the CIS (Commonwealthof Independent States) region, which includesUkraine, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova,and Russia.

Chart 2 shows the results in selectedjurisdictions:

Nearly half of all respondents recognised corruptionto be an issue affecting the legal profession intheir own jurisdiction. However, responses variedsignicantly from region to region. For example,only 16 per cent of respondents from Australasiasaw corruption as an issue, versus nearly 90 per

Yes

Pakistan

China

Guatemala

Ukraine

Peru

Colombia

Argentina

Russia

Mexico

Nigeria

Portugal

Costa Rica

Austria

India

El Salvador

Brazil

Italy

South Africa

United Arab Emirates

United Kingdom

United States

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Germany

Spain

Singapore

Poland

Malta

Finland

Belgium

Australia

Sweden

Norway

France

New Zealand

Chile

The Netherland

Switzerland

Hong Kong

Cyprus

Canada

Uruguay

Luxembourg

Japan

Denmark

Note: Respondents could answer yes or no. Countries with three or fewer respondents have been excluded from the chart.

Chart 3 shows the perception of corruption in thelegal profession of the respondents jurisdiction byage group. According to survey results, the older

the respondent, the less likely they were to agreethat corruption is an issue in the legal profession intheir jurisdiction.


70%

65%

60%

55%

50%

45%

40%

35%

Age 20-30 Age 31-40 Age 41-50 Age 51-60

Yes




11/32


international business transactions. As a result,legal professionals may be exposed to instancesof corruption outside their own jurisdiction.The survey therefore asked participants whethercorruption was an issue in the legal professionin neighbouring jurisdictions. Responses to thisquestion are shown in Chart 4.

2.Perceptionsoftheimpactofcorruption

onthelegalprofessioninneighbouring

jurisdictions

Due to the growth in international transactions,clients increasingly rely on local counsel for adviceon foreign legislation and for representation in

CIS

Asia


Latin America


UNCAC Parties

Middle East

USA and Canada


EU w/o Nordic countries

European Union

Australasia

Africa

Nordic countries

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Yes

No

I dont know

chart 4 do ou think corruPtion iS an iSSue in the

legal ProfeSSion in neighbouring juriSdictionS?


12/32


foreign investors they have a special insight intothe perceived impact of corruption on foreigninvestment. The survey therefore asked participants

whether refusing to pay bribes might reducethe chances of foreign companies or investors ofconducting business in their country.

In response to the above question, emergingeconomies such as Russia (60 per cent), India (62.5

per cent), Mexico (66.6 per cent), China (71.4per cent), Venezuela (78 per cent), Ukraine (80per cent) and Nigeria (91 per cent) respondedcertainly, very likely or likely. Respondentsfrom more advanced economies tended to respondunlikely or denitely not to the question. This

was the case in Sweden and Switzerland (100 percent), Canada and Norway (95 per cent), HongKong (86.7 per cent), Denmark and Spain (85 percent), and the US and the UK (84 per cent).

2.Businessandcompetitiverisks

Lawyers may sometimes be faced with a situation where their clients instruct them to act in atransaction that could involve possible corruption.Respondents were asked whether they had beenapproached to act in a transaction that couldreasonably be suspected to involve internationalcorruption. Chart 5 below illustrates the results by

world regions

In all, 56 per cent of survey respondents statedthat corruption was a problem in a neighbouring

jurisdiction. On a regional level, however, responsesvaried signicantly. Nearly 90 per cent of respondentsfrom the CIS region, for example, said corruption wasa problem in neighbouring jurisdictions, comparedto roughly 25 per cent in Nordic countries. Themajority of respondents in Australasia, Africa and Asia

responded I do not know.

Conclusion

Roughly half of all respondents perceive corruptionto be an issue in the legal profession in both theirhome and in neighbouring jurisdictions.

B. Risks associated with international

bribery and corruption

1.Perceivedimpactofcorruptiononforeign

investment

If a jurisdiction is associated with bribery andcorruption, it runs the risk of discouragingimportant foreign investment. Given the rolelegal professionals often play in internationalbusiness transactions acting in many occasionsas intermediaries, agents or representatives of

Yes

Yes, but refused

No

Maybe

Prefer not to answer

CIS


USA and Canada

Africa

UNCAC Parties

Latin America


Australasia

Nordic countries

Middle East

European Union


Asia

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

chart 5 have ou ever been aPProached to act aS an agent or middleman in a tranSaction

that could reaSonabl be SuSPected to involve international corruPtion, eg, foreign briber?


13/32


middlemen in transactions that could reasonablybe suspected to involve international corruption.

The survey also gathered the opinion ofparticipants as to what proportion of legalprofessionals in their jurisdiction would be willingto participate or facilitate international transactionsthat they recognise as corrupt. The responses bygeographic region are set out in Chart 6.

In general, most survey respondents said theyhad never been approached to act as an agent ormiddleman in a transaction that could reasonablybe suspected to involve international corruption,such as foreign bribery. However, it is interestingto note that one in ve respondents answeredyes, yes but refused and maybe to this question.This response alerts us to the unfortunate fact that

lawyers are indeed approached to act as agents/

More than 75%

50%-75%

25%-50%

Less than 25 %

Exactly 0%

Australasia

Nordic countries

USA and Canada

Asia


UNCAC Parties

Middle East

European Union


CIS

Africa

Latin America


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Approximately 28 per cent of respondents from

Africa and CIS countries believed that more thanhalf of lawyers in their jurisdiction would knowinglyengage in transactions that could be corrupt. Incontrast, less than 1.5 per cent of respondents inmore developed regions, such as Australasia, theEU and the USA and Canada, felt that more than

half of lawyers in their jurisdiction would engage in

such behaviour.Respondents were also asked whether they knew

of any legal professionals in their home jurisdictionwho have been involved in international corruption.Chart 7 shows the results by geographical regionfor those who answered in the afrmative.

chart 6 in our oPinion, what ProPortion of legal ProfeSSionalS in our

juriSdiction would be willing to ParticiPate or facilitate international

tranSactionS that the recogniSe aS corruPt, eg, foreign briber?


14/32


In Chart 7, the percentage of respondents, again,from developing or emerging economies were morelikely to note they knew of other legal professionals

who have engaged in corrupt activities than thosefrom developed economies. For instance, less than20 per cent of respondents from Australia, Canada,Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands andNew Zealand were aware of any lawyer in their

jurisdiction who had been involved in internationalcorruption. In contrast, 50 per cent of respondentsfrom South Korea, 53.3 per cent from Argentina,57.1 per cent from Russia, 66.6 per cent fromKenya and 81.8 per cent from Peru, answered in

the afrmative to the question. The overall resultsshow that nearly a third of all respondents knew ofother legal professionals who have been involved ininternational corruption offences.

So, how do these corrupt acts potentially affectones ability to compete in the legal profession?

Survey respondents were asked whether theybelieved they had lost business to other law rmsor individual lawyers who were prepared to makeillicit payments to government ofcials on behalfor for the benet of foreign companies/investors.Chart 8 shows the results by geographical region.

Responses to this question help illustrate the


Yes

CIS


Latin America

Africa

UNCAC Parties



European Union

Asia

USA and Canada

Nordic countries

Middle East

Australasia

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%


Yes

CIS


Latin America

Africa


Middle East

UNCAC Parties

Asia


European Union

USA and Canada

Australasia

Nordic countries

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

chart 7 do ou know of an legal ProfeSSionalS in our juriSdiction who have

been involved in international corruPtion offenceS, eg, foreign briber?

chart 8 do ou believe that ou have loSt buSineSS to other law firmS or

individual lawerS who are PrePared to make illicit PamentS to government

officialS on behalf or for the benefit of foreign comPanieS/inveStorS?


15/32


ten per cent in Australia, and 17 per cent in the UKand Spain answered yes to the question as well.

Conversely, over 70 per cent of Ukrainianand Peruvian respondents, 55 per cent of

Argentinean, Brazilian, Colombian, Indian and

Venezuelan respondents and 34 per cent of Russianrespondents thought that they had lost business toother law rms or individuals who were preparedto assist foreign clients to make illicit payments togovernment ofcials in their own jurisdiction.

impact of corruption on competition in the legalservices market. In all, almost 30 per cent of allrespondents answered in the afrmative. However,at the regional level, some familiar patterns

were observed. For instance, in more developed

economies, such as in the Nordic region, less thanve per cent of respondents believed that they hadlost business to other law rms/individuals becauseof corruption. Similarly, four per cent of respondentsin New Zealand, 5.3 per cent in Canada and Chile,

box 3 international anti-corruPtion inStrumentS

uncac

TheUnitedNationsConventionagainstCorruption(UNCAC)isthemostcomprehensive,andonlygloballegalframeworkagainst

corruption.Itobligesstatepartiestoimplementawiderangeofanti-corruptionmeasuresincludingmeasuresaimedatpreventing

andcriminalisingcorruptionrelatedactivities.Article16specicallydealswithbriberyofforeignpublicofcials.Todaythereare

140signatoriesand146countriesarepartytotheconvention.InNovember2009,thetermsofreferenceoftheMechanismfor

theReviewofImplementationoftheUNCACwereadopted.

oecd c

TheOECDAnti-BriberyConvention(ofciallyOECDConventiononCombatingBriberyofForeignPublicOfcialsinInternational

BusinessTransactions)establisheslegallybindingstandardstocriminalisebriberyofforeignpublicofcialsininternationalbusiness

transactionsandprovidesforahostofrelatedmeasuresthatmakethiseffective.Theconventionwassignedon17December

1997andcameintoforceon15February1999.Itistherstandonlyinternationalanti-corruptioninstrumentfocusedonthe

supplysideofthebriberytransaction.Asoftoday,the32OECDmembercountriesandsixnon-membercountrieshaveadopted

thisConvention.CountriesthathavesignedtheConventionarerequiredtoputinplacelegislationthatcriminalisestheactof

bribingaforeignpublicofcial.TheConventionprovidesforathoroughmonitoringmechanismcomprisingthreephases.Phase

1evaluatestheadequacyofacountryslegislationtoimplementtheConvention,whilePhase2assesseswhetheracountryis

applyingthislegislationeffectively.Phase3focusesonenforcementoftheConvention.Thenewlyadopted2009Recommendation

onFurtherCombatingBriberyofForeignPublicOfcialsinInternationalBusinessTransactionsanditsAnnexesstrengthenthelegal

frameworkoftheConventionwithnewprovisionsforcombatingfacilitationpayments,protectingwhistleblowersandimprovingcommunicationbetweenpublicofcialsandlawenforcementauthorities.

i-a c

TheInter-AmericanConventionAgainstCorruption(IACAC)wasadoptedbythemembercountriesoftheOrganizationof

AmericanStateson29March1996andcameintoforceon6March1997.Itaims,interalia,topromoteandstrengthenthe

developmentbyeachofthepartiesofthemechanismsneededtoprevent,detect,punishanderadicatecorruptionandto

promote,facilitateandregulatecooperationamongtheStatesPartiestoensuretheeffectivenessofanti-corruptionmeasuresand

actions.TheConventionsoversightmechanismsprovideforacomprehensivesystemofinter-statemonitoringandcompliance

assessments.Afollow-upmechanismwasadoptedinJune2001undertheSpanishAcronymMESICIC.Atpresent32countriesin

theAmericasarepartiestothisConvention.

a u c

TheAfricanUnionConventiononPreventingandCombatingCorruptionwasadoptedon11July2003.Itrepresentsregional

consensusonwhatAfricanstatesshoulddointheareasofprevention,criminalisation,internationalcooperationandasset

recovery.TheConventioncoversawiderangeofoffencesincludingbribery(domesticorforeign).Sofar33Africancountrieshave

ratiedtheConvention.Afollow-upmechanismisprovidedforinArticle22.

c ep cs cp

Therearetwoconventionsinthisregard.TheCouncilofEuropeCriminalLawConventiononCorruptionadoptedon4November

1998andthecorrespondingCivilLawConventionadoptedexactlyoneyearlater.Theseweretherstattemptstodenecommon

internationalrulesintheeldofcivilandcriminallawoncorruptioninEurope.WhiletheCivilLawConvention,inparticular,

providesforcompensationtobepaidfordamagesresultingfromactsofcorruption,theCriminalLawConventioncriminalises

corruptconductandpromotesinternationalcooperationwithrespecttocorruption.BoththeConventionshavebeensignedby

47COEstatesandsixnon-memberstates.TheimplementationofbothconventionsismonitoredbyGRECO:theGroupofStates

AgainstCorruption.

ep u iss cp

TheEUhasestablisheditsanti-corruptionpolicyinArticle29oftheTreatyonEuropeanUnion.Thetwomaininstrumentsarethe

ConventionontheProtectionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesFinancialInterestsandtheConventionagainstCorruptionInvolving

EuropeanOfcialsorOfcialsofMemberStatesoftheEuropeanUnion.


16/32


with which they were familiar with. A last availablechoice was none of the above. Chart 9 representsthe choices made by participants by region.

Nearly 40 per cent of respondents answerednone of the above when asked if they were awareof any of the international instruments includedin the survey. Respondents recognised some of theinstruments, particularly the OECD (38.5 per cent)

and UN (35.7 per cent) conventions, although in a very modest proportion. The overall and regionalresults show that the majority of respondents selectednone of the above, even in developed economies.More than 40 per cent of respondents in developedcountries such as Denmark, Germany, Canada,and Japan were not familiar with any instrument, aresult that increased to more than 70 per cent forparticipants in New Zealand and Hong Kong.

These results demonstrate the lack of awarenessamong legal professionals of the main internationalanti-corruption instruments and, consequently, of

the provisions in these instruments that concern theliability of intermediaries in international businesstransactions, which could affect legal professionals.

To further illustrate the real lack of awareness ofthese instruments, the survey team cross-tabulatedcountries by the Conventions they are party to.The outcome is equally alarming in terms of lackof awareness: more than half of all respondents

were unaware of these instruments despite theirjurisdiction being a party.

Conclusion

Respondents recognise that a signicant numberof lawyers are approached to act as an agent ormiddleman in a transaction that could reasonablybe suspected to involve international corruption.There is also the view that international corruptionnegatively affects the ability to compete for business

in the legal profession.

C. Level of awareness of the international

anti-corruption regulatory framework

1.Awarenessofinternationalanti-corruption

instruments

International corruption remains a major threatto the integrity and health of the legal professionin several parts of the world. One of the biggest

obstacles to confronting this issue is the low levelof awareness of the international anti-corruptionregulatory framework that exists to address theserisks. This framework includes international anti-corruption instruments and associated nationallegislation with extraterritorial application.

Given this situation, respondents werequestioned on their awareness of the variousinternational instruments on anti-corruption. Thesurvey listed the instruments described in Box2 and participants were asked to select the ones

UNCAC Convention

OECD Convention

Inter-American Convention

African Union Convention

Council of Europe Conventions (Civ and Crim)

European Union Instruments

None of the above

Global

Asia

CIS

Australasia


Middle East

European Union

Latin America

Africa

USA and Canada

Nordic countries

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

chart 9 awareneSS of international conventionS on corruPtion and briber b region


17/32


Aware 32%

Unaware 68%

Inter-American Convention Parties -

Awareness of Inter-American Convention

Aware 37%

Unaware 63%

African Union Convention Parties -

Awareness of African Union Convention

Aware 37%

Unaware 63%

UNCAC Convention Countries -

Awareness of UNCAC

Aware 45%

Unaware 55%

OECD Convention Parties -

Awareness of OECD Convention

chart 10 awareneSS of international conventionS b State PartieS

The survey team also cross-tabulated surveyresults by the practice area of respondents, witha special focus on the energy and environmental,infrastructure and construction, and real estate.These sectors have been identied as particularlyprone to the risks of international briberyand corruption, according to Transparency

Internationals Bribe Payers Index, which ranks22 leading international and regional exportingcountries by the tendency of their rms tobribe abroad. Chart 11 shows the percentage ofrespondents in these sectors who said they hadno knowledge of any of these international anti-corruption instruments.


18/32


Survey respondents were asked about theirawareness of two sample pieces of national

legislation: the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the UK Bribery Act, both of which have extraterritorial applicability. Thismeans that lawyers involved in internationaltransactions that include the bribery of foreignpublic ofcials can be affected by these laws.In all, 40 per cent of survey respondents wereunaware of the FCPA and its scope, while over 70per cent of respondents were unaware of the UKBribery Act and its scope.

2.Awarenessofnationallegislationwith

extraterritorialapplication

The extraterritorial application of nationallegislation dealing with international corruptionis an important element of the global anti-corruption regulatory framework that concernslawyers involved in international transactions.Some domestic laws extend their anti-corruption

jurisdiction beyond national boundaries. This givesrise to extraterritorial or long arm jurisdiction, theramications of which have been wide-ranging andincluded legal practitioners (see Box 4).

Unaware

Real Estate

Energy and Environment

Infrastructure and Construction

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

box 4 extraterritorial aPPlication of the offence of bribing a foreign Public official

Article4oftheOECDAnti-BriberyConventionrequiresStatesPartiestoexercisejurisdictionovercasesofbribingaforeign

publicofcialthattakeplaceinwholeorinpartintheirterritories.Inaddition,StatesPartiesthathavejurisdictionoveroffences

committedabroadbytheirnationalsmusthavesuchjurisdictionforthebriberyofforeignpublicofcialswhencommittedabroad

bytheirnationals,inaccordancewiththesameprinciples.Theseformsofjurisdictionareknownasterritorialandnationality

jurisdictionrespectively.

PursuanttoArticle4,all38StatesPartiestotheOECDAnti-BriberyConventionhaveterritorialjurisdictionovertheoffenceof

briberyofforeignpublicofcials,andallexceptoneStatePartyhavefullorpartialjurisdictionovertheirnationalswhobribe

foreignpublicofcialsabroad.ManyStatesPartiescanattributenationalitytocompaniesforthispurpose,anddependingonthe

lawofaStateParty,acompanymaybeconsideredanationalifitisincorporated,listedonastockexchangeorhasitsseatof

operationsinthatParty.Itisthereforeimportantthatallpartiestoaninternationalbusinesstransactionareawareofthescopeoftheseoffences,andcanadvisetheirclientsaccordingly.

AsofDecember2009therehavebeen138convictionsofnaturalpersonsand49convictionsoflegalpersonsin13StatesParties

totheAnti-BriberyConvention.Theincreasedmomentuminanti-briberyenforcementactionsagainstindividualsandcompanies

meanstherewillbeincreasinginstancesoftheextraterritorialapplicationofanti-briberylawstonaturalandlegalpersonsengaging

ininternationalbusinesstransactions.

chart 11 how reSPonSeS to PleaSe Select the international anti-corruPtion

inStrumentS ou are familiar with are diStributed with the Practice area of reSPondentS


19/32


89.5 per cent of respondents opined that laws andregulations were effective in preventing outboundcorruption and 78.9 per cent had the sameperception regarding inbound corruption. Norespondent in Germany had the opinion that lawshave not been effective during the last ve years.

Similarly, all respondents from the US, whichhas actively enforced the FCPA and has the greatest

number of prosecutions for bribery of foreign publicofcials in international business transactions, wereaware of the FCPA. All respondents also conrmedtheir knowledge of the extraterritorial applicationof this legislation.

Finally, awareness of rules and laws againstinternational corruption not only varied accordingto geographical location but also according to theage of the respondent. Survey results showed that

younger respondents (aged 20-30) showed lessawareness of international anti-corruption laws andnational legislation than more senior respondents

(see Box 5).

Respondents were also asked whether they believedthat national anti-corruption laws and regulations

were effective in preventing both inbound andoutbound corruption compared to ve years ago.

A total of 42 per cent of respondents believedthat such laws and regulations were ineffective inpreventing inbound and outbound internationalcorruption. At a more disaggregated level, all of

the respondents from Venezuela, 92.9 per centfrom Argentina, 85.7 per cent from Russia andIndia, 76.3 per cent from Nigeria, 71.4 per centfrom China, 70 per cent from Colombia and 60 percent from South Africa were of the opinion thatdomestic laws were ineffective in preventing bothows of corruption.

It is also of noteworthy that, in countries wheremajor foreign bribery cases have been prosecuted,the majority of respondents found the domesticlegislative framework to be effective. In Germany,for example, where companies such as Siemens,

Daimler, Deutsche Bahn and MAN have been thesubject of much-publicised foreign bribery cases,

box 5 awareneSS and age

41 years and over

20-30 years

Are you aware of your national laws and regulations

on international corruption, eg, foreign bribery?

No

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Are you aware of the existence and scope of the

United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?

Are you aware of the existence and scope

of the United Kingdom Bribery Act?Are you aware of the long arm jurisdiction,

ie, the cross border reach, of overseas laws such

as the United States FCPA or UK Bribery Act?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

41 years and over

20-30 years

41 years and over

20-30 years

No

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

41 years and over

20-30 years

No

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

No


20/32


and law rms are integral to facing this problem.The survey asked respondents whether they feelthese organisations are playing a positive role inaddressing the challenges of corruption.

1.Barassociationsandlawsocieties

To ascertain the work carried out by nationalbar associations in the area of anti-corruption,respondents were asked whether their local barassociations provide specic anti-corruptionguidance for legal practitioners. In all,approximately 43 per cent answered yes to thisquestion. A regional breakdown of responses tothis question is given in Chart 12.

Conclusion

There is a dangerous lack of awareness of theinternational anti-corruption instruments amonglegal professionals. However, awareness of nationallegislation with extraterritorial applicability isslightly higher and this legislation is generallyconsidered effective in preventing inbound and

outbound corruption.

D. The role of local bar associations, law

societies and law rms in addressing the

challenge of corruption

The lack of awareness of the international anti-corruption regulatory framework is a globalchallenge. Local bar associations, law societies

Note: Respondents could answer yes, no, I do not know, or there is no bar association in my jurisdiction.

Yes

No

I dont know

Asia


European Union

Nordic countries

UNCAC Parties

Australasia

Latin America


Africa

Middle East


CIS

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

chart 12 doeS our bar aSSociation or law Societ Provide

SPecific anti-corruPtion guidelineS for legal ProfeSSionalS?


21/32


2.Lawrms

The survey also asked respondents to consider whether their law rms are doing enough toprepare their organisations and employees forthe increasingly regulated and complicated world

of anti-corruption. Participants were questionedas to how local law rms prioritise the issue ofinternational corruption. Chart 14 compares theresults by geographical region.

Those who recognised the existence of anti-corruption guidance of their respective barassociation were further asked whether suchguidance tackles international corruption. Chart13 shows the results, by region.

The results show a low level of awareness of theexistence of specic bar guidance on combatinginternational corruption.

Yes

No

I dont know

USA and Canada

Asia


Australasia


CIS

UNCAC Parties

European Union

Nordic countries

Africa

Latin America


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Top priority

Moderate priority

Low priority

I dont know

Africa

Latin America

Middle East


European Union

UNCAC Parties

Asia



USA and Canada

Nordic countries

AustralasiaCIS

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

chart 13 doeS our bar aSSociation or law Societ guidelineS addreSS

SPecificall the iSSue of international corruPtion, eg, foreign briber?

chart 14 where doeS dealing with corruPtion and foreign

briber riSkS rank within the PrioritieS of our law firm?


22/32


responses from members within the same law rm.However, the results alert us about the possibility ofa fracture in the vertical communication betweenthe different levels of seniority in law rmsregarding the organisations compliance priorities.

Chart 15 shows that of those who selected I do notknow as the answer to this question, many moreassociates than partners were unaware of a rm-

wide anti-corruption policy. Given the anonymity ofthe responses to the survey, we could not compare

I dont know

Partner

Associate

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

Note: Respondents could answer yes, no or I do not know.

In a similar question, respondents were asked whether their rms have a clear and specicanti-corruption policy. Nearly 32 per cent of all

respondents said no. See Chart 16 for the regionaldistribution of responses.

Note: Respondents could answer yes, no or I do not know.

Yes

No

I dont know

Africa

Middle East

Latin America

European Union


UNCAC

Nordic countries

OECD

Australasia

Asia

USA and Canada


CIS

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

chart 15 how reSPonSeS to where doeS dealing with corruPtion and

foreign briber riSkS rank within the PrioritieS of our law firm are

diStributed with reSPect to the PoSitionS held b reSPondentS

chart 16 doeS our law firm have a clear and SPecific anti-corruPtion Polic?


23/32


Following on from the discussion above relatedto client pressure to engage in corrupt behaviour,the survey also asked respondents what proportionof their clients require their rm to certify anti-corruption compliance. In all regions, more than90 per cent of respondents stated that less than 25per cent of clients required them to certify their

anti-corruption compliance. Chart 18 shows theresults by region:

On a positive note, those who indicated thattheir law rms have a clear and specic anti-corruption policy were then asked how their rmsimplement this policy. More than 70 per cent ofthese respondents selected codes of ethics, 63.8 percent staff training, 22.7 per cent corporate socialresponsibility statements and 20.6 per cent stated

that their rms have a designated anti-corruptioncompliance ofcer.

17. Partners showed a more than ve times higherlevel of awareness than associates, indicating thatthese efforts may not be disseminated to the rmslower ranks.

When those who selected I do not know werecross-tabulated with their positions in the rm,a familiar pattern again arose, as shown in Chart

I dont know

Partner

Associate

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

75%-100%

50%-75%

25%-50%

Less than 25%

0%

Australasia

CIS

AsiaBaltic States and Eastern Europe


USA and Canada

UNCAC Parties

European Union

Nordic countries

Africa

Latin America


Middle East

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

chart 17 how reSPonSeS to doeS our law firm have a clear and SPecific anti-corruPtionPolic? are diStributed with reSPect to the PoSitionS held b reSPondentS in law firmS

chart 18 aPProximatel what ProPortion of our foreign clientS require

our firm to certif anti-corruPtion comPliance, eg, fcPa comPliance?


24/32


This seems to conrm that clients are unaware oftheir own due diligence responsibilities and/orthat they do not consider lawyers as intermediaries

who could engage in corrupt acts and/or besubject to anti-corruption rules and regulations.Respondents answers to the question, has your

rm been subject to anti-corruption or anti-moneylaundering due diligence conducted by foreignclients? conrms this assumption as two-thirds ofrespondents answered in the negative. See Chart 19for a regional breakdown of the responses.

Yes

No

I dont know


Asia

CIS

Australasia


Middle East

European Union


UNCAC Parties

Latin America

Africa

USA and Canada

Nordic countries

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Finally, the survey results also showed that foreigncompanies rarely seek advice on issues of foreignbribery. Nearly 85 per cent of all respondents saidthey had never or rarely provided advice on thisissue to foreign clients.

Conclusion

Respondents do not perceive their bar associations,law societies and law rms as actively engaging theirprofessionals on issues of international bribery andcorruption. Where such efforts are being made,

younger and less-senior legal professionals oftenfail to pick up the message.

chart 19 haS our firm been Subject to anti-corruPtion or

anti-mone laundering due diligence conducted b foreign clientS?


25/32


A. Summary of conclusions

Throughout this report, certain preliminaryconclusions can be drawn from the survey data:

Perceptions of levels of corruption on the legal profession at home and abroad

Conclusion:Roughlyhalfofallrespondentsperceivecorruptiontobeanissueinthelegalprofessioninboththeirhomeandin

neighbouringjurisdictions.

Risks associated with international bribery and corruption

Conclusion:Respondentsrecognisethatasignicantnumberoflawyersareapproachedtoactasanagentormiddlemanin

atransactionthatcouldreasonablybesuspectedtoinvolveinternationalcorruption.Thereisalsotheviewthatinternational

corruptionnegativelyaffectstheabilitytocompeteforbusinessinthelegalprofession.

Level of awareness of the international anti-corruption regulatory framework

Conclusion:Thereisadangerouslackofawarenessoftheinternationalanti-corruptioninstrumentsamonglegalprofessionals.

However,awarenessofnationallegislationwithextraterritorialapplicabilityisslightlyhigherandthislegislationisgenerally

consideredeffectiveinpreventinginboundandoutboundcorruption.

The role of local bar associations, law societies and law rms in addressing the challenge of corruption

Conclusion:Respondentsdonotperceivetheirbarassociations,lawsocietiesandlawrmsasactivelyengagingtheirprofessionals

onissuesofinternationalbriberyandcorruption.Wheresucheffortsarebeingmade,youngerandless-seniorlegalprofessionals

oftenfailtopickupthemessage.

Conclusions and recommendations

B. Recommendations

Based on the survey results, the followingrecommendations can be made to help the legalprofession address the threat of corruption:

1.Undertakefurtherresearchonthelevelsof

corruptioninthelegalprofession

The perception of corruption as a major issue withinthe legal profession is low. However, a signicantproportion of legal professionals noted that they

or someone they know have been approached toact as an agent in an international transaction thatcould be considered as corrupt under the rulesand regulations included in the international anti-corruption regulatory framework.

In order to reconcile the gap between perceivedawareness of corruption as a problem and theeveryday corruption-related challenges faced bylegal professionals, further research should beundertaken into the existence of internationalcorruption in the legal profession.

2.Undertakeindustry-wideanti-corruption

awareness-raisingandtrainingactivities

To raise awareness of the risks of corruption tothe legal profession and the instruments availablefor protecting oneself from these risks, the legalprofession led by bar associations, law societies,law schools and law rms should do more toinform and train its professionals.

The IBA, in cooperation with the OECD andthe UNODC, has already paved the way in thisrespect, with its Anti-Corruption Strategy for the LegalProfession. Training sessions for legal professionals

on these issues have been held or are scheduledin Chile, Argentina, Mexico, Peru and Colombia.In 2011, these training sessions will expand to Asiaand Eastern Europe. By 2012, the training will beexpanded globally.

As the Strategy develops, it will also support thecreation and promotion of anti-corruption modulesfor law school curricula. From the survey results,it appears that young lawyers are not being taughtabout this subject before entering professionalpractice. Education, training and awareness-raisingat all levels is the key for the success in this industry-

wide plan for lawyers.


26/32


laundering, rms must understand the challengesand potential liability that a weak approach to anti-corruption could bring to the organisation. Inthe long run, the IBA intends to work on creatingtoolkits and other instruments to assist lawyers intackling the risks and threats posed by corruption.

In the meantime, the recently adoptedOECD Good Practice Guidance on Internal Controls,

Ethics and Compliance for businesses and businessorganisations provides a good example of how sucha compliance programme for legal professionalscould look.

3.Complianceprogrammesforlegal

professionalsmust:(a)includemeasuresto

combatbriberyandinternationalcorruption;

and(b)bedisseminatedthroughtherm

Law rms are encouraged to include measures tocombat bribery and international anti-corruptionin their compliance programmes. Although thisshould not be construed as a need to structurecomplex systems in addition to those alreadyin place in some jurisdictions for anti-money


27/32


Geographical regions used in this report

Geographical regions in this report are composed by the following jurisdictions:

Africa: Algeria, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe

Asia: Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, India, Japan, South Korea , Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, Singapore, SriLanka, Taiwan and Thailand

Australasia: Australia and New Zealand

Baltic States and Eastern Europe:Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland,Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia,Sweden, Turkey, and Ukraine

CIS: Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Russia

European Union: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway,Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom

Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden

Latin America:Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela

Middle East: Egypt, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Syria, United Arab Emirates and Yemen

OECD Convention Parties: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, CzechRepublic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan,South Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia,Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States (Thereare 38 Parties to the OECD Convention. Representatives from 37 responded to this survey. The 38th Partyis Iceland.)

UNCAC Parties: Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia,Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Cayman Islands, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus,Denmark, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras,Hong Kong, Hungary, Iran, Israel, Italy, Kenya, South Korea, Kosovo, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Lebanon,Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Netherlands,Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania,Russia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan,Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay,

Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe (This list only includes those UNCAC Parties where responsesto the survey were submitted.)

Annex 1


28/32


Further reading

Colares, Juscelino F, The Evolving Domestic and International Law against Foreign Corruption: Some new and olddilemmas facing the International Lawyer, 5 Wash U Global Stud L Rev 1 2006

Fisch, Jill E & Rosen, Kenneth M, Is There a Role for Lawyers in Preventing Future Enrons?, 48(4) VillanovaLaw Review, 1097, 2003

Foley, Veronica & Haynes, Catina, The FCPA and its Impact in Latin America, 17 Currents Intl Trade L J 272008-2009

Hatchard, John, Recent Developments in Combating the Bribery of Foreign Public Ofcials: A Cause for Optimism?85 U Det Mercy L Rev 1 2007-2008

Jennifer D Faucett, Legal Malpractice and Bribery: The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Pitfalls it creates forAttorneys, 29 J Legal Prof 213 2004-2005

Law 360, Beware of the UK Bribery Act(Available at:www.lexmundi.com/images/lexmundi/PracticeGroups/BusinessCrimes/Law360June2010.pdf,last accessed 3 September 2010)

Nelson II, William Alan, Attorney Liability Under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: Legal and Ethical Challengesand Solutions, 39 U Mem L Rev 255 2008-2009

Weinstein, Martin J, The World of International Compliance: What Transactions Lawyers Need to Know to PerformEthically and Responsibly, 29 Hous J Intl L 311 2006-2007

Zagaris, Bruce & Ohri, Shaila Lakhani, The Emergence of an International Enforcement Regime on Transnational

Corruption in the Americas, 30 Law & Poly Intl Bus 53 1998-1999

Annex 2


29/32


The process to develop the survey and report was led by Gonzalo Guzman, Senior Staff Lawyer fromthe IBA Legal Projects Team with the kind support of Nicola Bonucci, Patrick Moulette, Leah Amblerand Mary Crane (OECD), Dimitri Vlassis and Enrico Bisogno (UNODC), Nick Benwell (Simmons &

Simmons), Mike Schwartz and Brent McDaniel (KPMG LLP) and IBA Legal Interns Soa Laljee andAlthaf Marsoof.

For more information about the Anti-Corruption Strategy for the Legal Profession:

Please visit our website atwww.anticorruptionstrategy.org.

To participate in this initiative, please contact Gonzalo Guzman, IBA Senior Staff Lawyer, [email protected].

Acknowledgements


30/32


31/32


32/32

Documents

Risks and Threats Corruption Legal Profession