Foreign courts and foreign cars
By Eddie Reich
I just returned from an overseas family vacation where I boldly decided to tour the countryside in a rental car. I confess to having been a bit unprepared for the challenges of driving in a foreign country. For example, I was embarrassed to discover that the sign that read ‘60’ was a reference to the speed limit, not Route 60, the road on which I was supposed to have been driving. That set me back a good half-hour. And while I tend to rely on Siri for directions, she doesn’t do foreign languages well (her ‘turn left on Rehov Mendele Mocher Sefarim’ was not helpful). Perhaps most jarring, who knew that the protocol for informing a driver that he is in the wrong lane is to get out of one’s car, scream bloody murder, bang on the offender’s (my) window with both fists and repeatedly kick the side of the car? My driving experience bore greater resemblance to the chase scene from Bullitt than a relaxing ride in the Family Truckster.
As hard as it is to drive in a foreign country, protecting client confidences when dealing with someone in a foreign country can be an even greater challenge. Varying legal cultures (most countries don’t have broad discovery mechanisms like we do) and different regulatory regimes (many countries have different categories of ‘legal professionals’) lead to a hodgepodge of rules around the globe. (In China, for example, while there is a duty of confidentiality for ‘private information’, that duty may be trumped by a lawyer’s oath ‘to be faithful to the motherland and the people [and] to uphold the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and the socialist system’.)
Although we in the US take for granted that a communication between an attorney and his or her client will be protected from disclosure, a communication that might be recognised as privileged in a US court might not enjoy the same protection in a foreign tribunal. By the same token, where alleged privileged communications took place in a foreign country or involved foreign attorneys or proceedings, US courts won’t necessarily recognise a privilege; they may defer to the law of the country that has the ‘predominant’ or ‘most direct and compelling interest’…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Dentons briefing.
News from Dentons
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Dentons
‘Inversion’ transactions are nothing new, and the current proceedings appear to be just another replay of earlier games of tag between the government and US multinationals.
In Devon Canada Corporation v The Queen, the issue is whether the taxpayer may deduct $20,884,041 paid to cancel issued stock options.
Analysis from The Lawyer
The continent’s boom in natural resources and renewable energy is sparking an infrastructure drive
Shearman & Sterling is making its presence felt in the City, squaring up to magic circle firms and looking to muscle in on key relationships. Private equity house Bridgepoint is one outfit that has had its head turned by the US firm.