When a firm acts with two clients with conflicts of interest being evident along with successive representation forms an unconquerable information barrier that defines the term ‘Chinese wall.’ The process for professionals such as lawyers who have ethical obligations increasingly face difficulties in handling the conflicts of interest. The legal industry has received increasing attention for this concept as it prevents the disclosure of confidential information within the echelons of the firm. The efficiency of Chinese walls is questionable for particularly two reasons. Firstly, there is a possibility of breaching a duty of confidence owed to the initial client that may lead to the breach of the fiduciary duty of undivided loyalty even after
…show more content…
During the recruitment period for Project Gamma, an affidavit was confirmed by all staff that no one has any confidential information obtained from Prince Jefri however, on the grounds of conflict of interest, Prince Jefri wanted KPMG to be disqualified from progressing with Project Gamma. Pumfrey J was ought to assess the reasonableness of the preventive resources and held that the Chinese Walls was an inefficient ethical barrier in preventing accidental disclosure or potentially preventing deliberate disclosure. In the House of Lords, Lord Millett affirmed that it is the solicitor’s duty to not only take reasonable steps in maintaining the information however, it is his duty to ensure that the information is kept confidential. After taking Rakusen’s case into consideration, it was concluded that it would be unfair to impose the burden on the former client that may lead to a significant risk. Also, where ambiguity is evident in the source of information, Rakusen’s approach might create an uncertainty for the solicitor. It is a matter “of perception as well as substance” for the solicitor …show more content…
It includes the probability of contact between lawyers and former clients, the rules available for lawyers to gain access from the former client’s information, the discussion of fees between the clients and the size and the organizational divisions of the law firm involved. The court declared that these factors apply on a case by case basis. The analysis of the efficacy of Chinese Walls depend on primarily three questions. Does the ethical barrier prevent formal disclosure? The permissive level of informal disclosure if Chinese Walls is perceived to be effective? Though the first question requires reference to facts, there is a demand for policy consideration if the second question is being analysed. As for Bolkiah, there is a requirement for an absence for formal disclosure however for McVeagh, there is a requirement for informal disclosure to dip to a reasonable level where policy interests are being competed. The third question, where it states about human interaction, has no assertive answer if the approach in Bolkiah is taken however, if McVeagh’s approach is taken, there is a need to tread the heels upon of informal
During the recruitment period for Project Gamma, an affidavit was confirmed by all staff that no one has any confidential information obtained from Prince Jefri however, on the grounds of conflict of interest, Prince Jefri wanted KPMG to be disqualified from progressing with Project Gamma. Pumfrey J was ought to assess the reasonableness of the preventive resources and held that the Chinese Walls was an inefficient ethical barrier in preventing accidental disclosure or potentially preventing deliberate disclosure. In the House of Lords, Lord Millett affirmed that it is the solicitor’s duty to not only take reasonable steps in maintaining the information however, it is his duty to ensure that the information is kept confidential. After taking Rakusen’s case into consideration, it was concluded that it would be unfair to impose the burden on the former client that may lead to a significant risk. Also, where ambiguity is evident in the source of information, Rakusen’s approach might create an uncertainty for the solicitor. It is a matter “of perception as well as substance” for the solicitor …show more content…
It includes the probability of contact between lawyers and former clients, the rules available for lawyers to gain access from the former client’s information, the discussion of fees between the clients and the size and the organizational divisions of the law firm involved. The court declared that these factors apply on a case by case basis. The analysis of the efficacy of Chinese Walls depend on primarily three questions. Does the ethical barrier prevent formal disclosure? The permissive level of informal disclosure if Chinese Walls is perceived to be effective? Though the first question requires reference to facts, there is a demand for policy consideration if the second question is being analysed. As for Bolkiah, there is a requirement for an absence for formal disclosure however for McVeagh, there is a requirement for informal disclosure to dip to a reasonable level where policy interests are being competed. The third question, where it states about human interaction, has no assertive answer if the approach in Bolkiah is taken however, if McVeagh’s approach is taken, there is a need to tread the heels upon of informal