I assume he means criminal record checks? Remember that gal from DACB who finished her TC but didn't qualify as she had a caution for a shop lifting offence.
Laterals will be conflict checked if moving to a yank shop because their conflict rules are different.
If butfook idaho llp once acted against Penis & sons sugar refiner in 1804, you can't bring in your £££££mio client, Supersugarpop plc because it bought penis &son's ultimate parent in 19 and 12.
There are US firms that will try to make you do this for the reason I outlined above. The ones, typically, where noone in london has enough clout to tell them to get a proper system in place
Thanks Wang - so I’m guessing the US approach to aggressive conflicts checks only apply to laterals (as opposed to promotions, e.g newly qualified associates who trained at the same firm)?
There was a case a few years ago where Clifford chance got Cooke Young and Keidan conflicted out of it because one of the associates had been a CC trainee.
As an english law matter, it shouldnt be technically possible to have a conflict against your own firm so the question is nonsensical.
if there is some kind of ethical wall or common interest or other thing they have in place then you would have to remain on the same side you were as a trainee but the firm wouldnt have to run a check on that, it's their fooking system!
We had to (politely) ask another firm to move an associate off a deal as that associate had moved from our firm to them and he had been working on that matter for us. Not sure why they thought we’d be ok with it.
Conflict searching is often undertaken as part of the lateral partner hiring process to ensure that the apparent book of business will not be eroded by an inability to act.
more prevalent for all is the duty of confidentiality and disclosure which exists and would prevent you working at a new firm on matters where your knowledge could prejudice your former client (because your duty of disclosure to your new client requires you to tell the new client but your duty of confidentiality to your old one prevent you from doing that) - this is a conflict in the literal sense and just as important
Years ago I had an offer from Spaffmeister & Khunt LLP. They told me they needed details of every deal I'd ever worked on to "clear conflicts".
I reminded them that I was bound by a quaint little anachronism called the "code of conduct" which required something called "confidentiality".
I went so far as to ask consent from my biggest client who - it turned out - was governed by its own regulator's banking secrecy laws.
I explained that I couldn't give them the deal list they had asked for. Spaffmeister & Khunt were shocked and appalled that I might be so uncommercial.
1
0
What are you talking about
1
0
A rare what hanners said
0
0
Declaring significant shareholdings used to be common.
0
0
No @ the OP
Even when you move it is just expected you declare any potential conflicts as you go along
Unless you move as a partner in which case the firm usually ensures that conflicts are cleared on key clients in advance
0
0
I assume he means criminal record checks? Remember that gal from DACB who finished her TC but didn't qualify as she had a caution for a shop lifting offence.
1
0
Christ
1
0
Laterals will be conflict checked if moving to a yank shop because their conflict rules are different.
If butfook idaho llp once acted against Penis & sons sugar refiner in 1804, you can't bring in your £££££mio client, Supersugarpop plc because it bought penis &son's ultimate parent in 19 and 12.
unless they waive it in which case it's fine
0
0
Just to clarify I mean client conflicts (rather than DBS)!
0
0
@Davos - okay so that means it’s not about declaring every single matter you have worked on since starting out as a trainee?
0
0
There are US firms that will try to make you do this for the reason I outlined above. The ones, typically, where noone in london has enough clout to tell them to get a proper system in place
0
0
Thanks Wang - so I’m guessing the US approach to aggressive conflicts checks only apply to laterals (as opposed to promotions, e.g newly qualified associates who trained at the same firm)?
0
0
How are you going to declare matters you worked on at one firm to another without breaching client confidentiality?
0
0
Modern youth is rubbish.
0
0
There was a case a few years ago where Clifford chance got Cooke Young and Keidan conflicted out of it because one of the associates had been a CC trainee.
0
0
Yes, that must be a real and urgent issue with NQs.
0
0
As an english law matter, it shouldnt be technically possible to have a conflict against your own firm so the question is nonsensical.
if there is some kind of ethical wall or common interest or other thing they have in place then you would have to remain on the same side you were as a trainee but the firm wouldnt have to run a check on that, it's their fooking system!
0
0
Mole 5, that's one of the reasons the us/uk systems don't sit easily side by side in the same firm.
0
0
We had to (politely) ask another firm to move an associate off a deal as that associate had moved from our firm to them and he had been working on that matter for us. Not sure why they thought we’d be ok with it.
0
0
Conflict searching is often undertaken as part of the lateral partner hiring process to ensure that the apparent book of business will not be eroded by an inability to act.
more prevalent for all is the duty of confidentiality and disclosure which exists and would prevent you working at a new firm on matters where your knowledge could prejudice your former client (because your duty of disclosure to your new client requires you to tell the new client but your duty of confidentiality to your old one prevent you from doing that) - this is a conflict in the literal sense and just as important
0
0
and next up in parsnip’s occasional series on professionalism in law: “being honest, it really matters”
0
0
This is a load of horsehit from US firms.
Years ago I had an offer from Spaffmeister & Khunt LLP. They told me they needed details of every deal I'd ever worked on to "clear conflicts".
I reminded them that I was bound by a quaint little anachronism called the "code of conduct" which required something called "confidentiality".
I went so far as to ask consent from my biggest client who - it turned out - was governed by its own regulator's banking secrecy laws.
I explained that I couldn't give them the deal list they had asked for. Spaffmeister & Khunt were shocked and appalled that I might be so uncommercial.
Utterly absurd.
0
0
Out of curiosity to those who've moved to US firms - how did you manage this process? Did you just decide that client confidentiality didn't matter?
Even more worrying was that this mob tried to reassure me on the basis that my clients would never find out. Oh, so that makes it OK, then?
0
0
No.
Join the discussion