We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
An inquest is an inquisitorial process, and this has an impact on the roles of the advocates and the jury, if there is one. This chapter explains their roles, and also when a professional may require separate legal representation, with some further tips on giving evidence from the perspective of an advocate.
Lobbyists sometimes represent clients with seemingly adversarial policy interests. We seek to explain the occurrence of such ostensible conflicts of interest. In hiring lobbyists, interests encounter a tradeoff between access and agency. Although some lobbyists promise access to lawmakers, they may not lobby as contracted. Interests hire seemingly conflicted lobbyists more often when access is costlier and reputational risks are smaller. We examine the hiring of tobacco lobbyists by health interests, given the possibilities for shirking and reputational damage. We find that institutions such as hospitals hire tobacco lobbyists regularly and more often than membership-based health groups. Intergroup competition for access and lobby laws, especially anti-conflict laws, affect the use of tobacco lobbyists independent of rates of multi-client lobbying. Conflicts are more common today than ever but interests can protect themselves somewhat from opportunistic agents. Our findings also suggest that reforms can improve the representation of client interests.
To evaluate how study characteristics and methodological aspects compare based on presence or absence of industry funding, Hughes et al. conducted a systematic survey of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in three major medical journals. The authors found industry-funded RCTs were more likely to be blinded, post results on a clinical trials registration database (ClinicalTrials.gov), and accrue high citation counts.1 Conversely, industry-funded trials had smaller sample sizes and more frequently used placebo as the comparator, used a surrogate as their primary outcome, and had positive results.
This true story of a mediation in a personal injury lawsuit describes a sequence of events and fairly common practices that raise significant questions about mediation ethics as well as attorney ethics.
ERISA’s underdeveloped civil enforcement mechanism, section 502(a), has generated extensive litigation. Judicially crafted strictures on the relief available to participants have arisen with respect to standing, scope of judicial review, causes of action, and remedies. While the Supreme Court has held those with a colorable claim to benefits have standing, precisely what that means has proven elusive. Judicial review of denied claims is strictly constrained. Court access requires that participants have exhausted internal review processes, and if the plan grants the administrator discretion to determine eligibility for benefits or construe the plan’s terms (which is virtually always), judicial review is restricted to a cursory scan for abuse of discretion. Deferential review survives even if the administrator is conflicted: lower courts are instructed to consider the conflict merely as one factor in and overall assessment of whether discretion was abused. Finally, the Court has held that ERISA does not permit the full panoply of damages one would expect in the aftermath of contractual or fiduciary breach. Consequential damages are unavailable for denied claims, and equitable relief for fiduciary breach is limited to what was typically available in equity in the days of the divided bench.
The Attorney General for England and Wales is the Government's Senior Law Officer who, inter alia, initiates certain kinds of legal proceedings. She is also a politician: a member of the House of Commons or the House of Lords and appointed to Government by the Prime Minister. This paper considers the Attorney General's role in initiating contempt proceedings against fellow politicians. I detail a number of cases where politicians have been involved in potential contempts by publication. I argue that, in such cases, the Attorney General's position may amount to an actual or perceived conflict of interest and may breach the principle that justice should be seen to be done.
This chapter articulates the central argument (why a new legal form for social enterprises in India, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Singapore is needed and what it should entail); explains why the four Asian jurisdictions are selected as case studies; and examines the purposes of social enterprises and their two main business models. The chapter then provides an overview of social enterprises in the four Asian jurisdictions including: their operating domains, the drivers of the development of social enterprises, the challenges faced by them, the three main conflicts of interests afflicting them, and the legal forms used by social enterprises. Importantly, the chapter shows that the legal forms available to or used by social enterprises in the four Asian jurisdictions are unable to properly address the conflicts of interests, and thus, a new legal form is required.
Adaptation by
Adrian Evans, Monash University, Victoria,Richard Wu, The University of Hong Kong,Shenjian Xu, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing
We should act for only one client at a time, to avoid a conflict of interest (or a conflict of loyalty). So what happens when your law firm as a whole has two commercial clients trying to negotiate a merger and one lawyer in one team ‒ yourself ‒ suddenly learns something damaging about the other client that could derail the merger? Traditional role morality, virtue ethics and Confucian teaching require us to avoid situations where interests conflict. Loyalty is not contentious for most of us, except when we are setting our fees. However, the professional conduct rules that apply to current (concurrent) client conflicts and current–former (successive) client conflicts are some of the most complex in Greater China. Utilising scenarios around Big Pharma patents’ disputes, competing airlines and competing steelmakers, our diagrams set out the conduct rules of Greater China and suggest solutions according to general morality. Avoid joint representation in commercially competitive areas – regardless of an information barrier – and where a conflict emerges due to a firm merger, cease acting for both parties.
This paper explores the psychology of conflict of interest by investigating how conflicting interests affect both public statements and private judgments. The results suggest that judgments are easily influenced by affiliation with interested partisans, and that this influence extends to judgments made with clear incentives for objectivity. The consistency we observe between public and private judgments indicates that participants believed their biased assessments. Our results suggest that the psychology of conflict of interest is at odds with the way economists and policy makers routinely think about the problem. We conclude by exploring implications of this finding for professional conduct and public policy.
The Australian compulsory superannuation system contains nearly $AUD 3 trillion in funds, which is a substantial share of the personal wealth held by Australians. This means decisions made by superannuation trustees are important for everyone in Australia, both as beneficiaries and as participants in the Australian economy. The regulation of trustee decision-making, like the superannuation system as a whole, is founded on the equitable principles of trust law, but with an extensive overlay of legislative and regulatory intervention. Examining the regulation of decision-making in this context provides important insights into foundational trust law principles as well as a major component of wealth management in Australia.
Since its creation in 1988, the IPCC has taken increasing care to formalise its procedures. IPCC procedures define the creation and role of the IPCC Bureau, Task Forces and Working Groups, as well as the steps that must be taken by experts when preparing reports, and by administrators for overseeing the institution’s funding. Increasingly detailed over time and now running over several dozen pages, the IPCC procedures are not a boring part of IPCC studies. They are key observation points of the main issues that the IPCC has had to address over time. They reflect the compromises it has made in its efforts to give the greatest political efficiency to its reports, while ensuring that their scientific robustness remains irreproachable. The procedures therefore constitute a site from which many of the issues addressed in this book can be read. However, they should not be taken as descriptions of actual practices: their implementation is open to interpretation and thereby to debate. The drafting and amendment of procedures therefore remains an open process.
Research identifies that multinational corporations, including The Coca-Cola Company (‘Coca-Cola’), seek to influence public health research and policy through scientific events, such as academic and professional conferences. This study aims to understand how different forms of funding and sponsorship impact the relationship between Coca-Cola, academic institutions, public health organisations, academics and researchers.
Design:
The study was conducted using Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and systematic website searches.
Setting:
Data were collected by twenty-two FOI requests to institutions in the USA and UK, resulting in the disclosure of 11 488 pages, including emails and attachments relating to 239 events between 2009 and 2018. We used the Wayback Machine to review historical website data to evaluate evidence from 151 available official conference websites.
Participants:
N/A
Results:
Documents suggest that Coca-Cola provides direct financial support to institutions and organisations hosting events in exchange for benefits, including influence over proceedings. Coca-Cola also provided direct financial support to speakers and researchers, sometimes conditional on media interviews. Also, indirect financial support passed through Coca-Cola-financed non-profits. Often, such financial support was not readily identifiable, and third-party involvement further concealed Coca-Cola funding.
Conclusion:
Coca-Cola exerts direct influence on academic institutions and organisations that convene major public health conferences and events. These events offer Coca-Cola a vehicle for its messaging and amplifying viewpoints favourable to Coca-Cola’s interests. Such corporate-sponsored events should be viewed as instruments of industry marketing. Stronger rules and safeguards are needed to prevent hidden industry influence, such as complete disclosure of all corporate contributions for public health conferences and their speakers.
The inclusion of a chapter on ethical issues in a property law text is hardly conventional. You will struggle to find matters of professional and legal ethics or ethical duties and obligations discussed in either a text or arguably a course on property law. However, we believe a different way of tackling matters of ethics is required. It remains important to acquire a solid grounding in the legal and regulatory framework relevant to legal ethics, including the sorts of ethical and professional dilemmas confronted by both law students and legal practitioners in a rapidly changing profession. It is also important to gain an understanding of how ethical issues and dilemmas arise in property transactions, dealings and practice.
With the integration of technology into property law and the professional work of property lawyers and conveyancers, the role and context of ethical decision-making is relevant for both the student learning property law and the property law practitioner in the modern period.
The chapter analyses how the ECB was granted responsibility over prudential supervision as part of the EU banking union. This changed the EU perspective on financial services from internal market issue to a macroeconomic financial stability issue. The ECB now supervises directly the largest banking groups in the euro area and monitors the supervision of all other banks as well. The ECB’s role in the banking union raises new types of constitutional questions and requires a different analytical framework. A formal legal assessment, particularly on the legal basis for conferring specific tasks on the ECB under Article 127(6) TFEU, is complemented with a broader economic constitutional analysis. Here, the context in which the banking union was initiated is particularly important. The chapter also discusses the merits and caveats of combining banking supervision and monetary policy, where the conflict of interest is the main caveat particularly for an independent institution such as the ECB. It is also concluded that the supervision could return to the internal market setting and again be separated from monetary policy in the future.
Research on opioid use in pregnancy is critically important to understand how the opioid epidemic has affected a generation of children, but also raises significant ethical and legal challenges. Embedded ethicists can help to fill the gaps in ethics oversight for such research, but further guidance is needed to help strike the balance between integration and independence.
In the United States, institutional review boards (IRBs) occupy a crucial independent oversight role and are, therefore, a familiar part of the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) research landscape. IRBs serve as gatekeepers, providing ethical and regulatory oversight of research to ensure the adequacy of human subject protections. In this chapter, we provide an overview of IRBs, consider how to manage conflicts of interest, and highlight select ethical issues that arise in AD research.
The present study aims to examine the relationship between study funding sources, author conflicts of interest (COI) and conclusions in studies supporting vitamin D and Ca intake cited in bone health guideline recommendations.
Design:
Cross-sectional
Setting:
Forty-seven global bone health guidelines with vitamin D and/or Ca recommendations for adults aged 40 years and above.
Participants:
The evidence cited to support the recommendations was extracted by two independent reviewers and classified by type of recommendation, article characteristics, study design, types of funding sources and conflict of interest (COI) disclosure and direction of study conclusions.
Results:
Of 156 articles cited to support the bone health recommendations, 120 (77 %) disclosed a funding source, and 43 (28 %) declared that at least one author had a COI. Compared with articles with non-commercial or no funding source, those funded by commercial sponsors tended to have a study conclusion favourable towards vitamin D/Ca (relative risk (95 % CI): 1·32 (0·94, 1·87), P = 0·16), but the association was not statistically significant (Fisher’s exact test). Compared to those with a COI disclosure statement, articles with missing or unclear COI disclosure were more likely to have favourable conclusions (1·56 (1·05, 2·31), P = 0·017) (Fisher’s exact test).
Conclusion:
In the evidence underpinning a sample of global bone health guidelines, COI disclosure was low and studies with missing or unclear COI disclosures were more likely to have favourable study conclusions than those with disclosures, suggesting a need for greater transparency of COI in bone health guidelines.
The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), established in 1996, investigates and seeks to resolve disputes arising in connection with Hong Kong’s anti-discrimination ordinances. Its complaint-handling process involves recourse to conciliation, investigation and litigation. The EOC thus provides a hybrid multi-tier dispute resolution service. If conciliation fails, the EOC may investigate and eventually assist a person to pursue in court a complaint which is thought to merit further action. This chapter asks how the EOC can maintain neutrality and confidentiality when discharging its respective functions of conciliator, investigator and litigator in the same matter, without becoming entangled in actual or potential conflicts of interest. It examins how similar institutions in the United States, the United Kingdom and elsewhere have sought (or not) to resolve the tension in their roles when handling discrimination complaints. It then discusses recommendations and their underlying rationale for reconciling the EOC’s seemingly conflicting roles, in order to effectively resolve discrimination complaints and bridge the long-standing gap in public perception.
The ongoing convergence of the various corporate governance systems in the world is reflected by the increasingly important institute of the independent director. Even legal systems, like Germany, which require a dualistic board structure and thus have no or less need for independent directors have introduced independent directors. The paper examines the approach taken in Delaware and Germany and compares them. The comparison shows that while the concept of the independent director is the same in both jurisdictions, it has been implemented rather differently. The legal comparison may, thus, provide suggestions for improving the determination of independence of directors.
Clinical innovation is ubiquitous in medical practice and is generally viewed as both necessary and desirable. While innovation has been the source of considerable benefit, many clinical innovations have failed to demonstrate evidence of clinical benefit and/or caused harm. Given uncertainly regarding the consequences of innovation, it is broadly accepted that it needs some form of oversight. But there is also pushback against what is perceived to be obstruction of access to innovative interventions. In this chapter, we argue that this pushback is misguided and dangerous – particularly because of the myriad competing and conflicting interests that drive and shape clinical innovation.