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.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Dentons
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Dentons
Work Safe Alberta has released an Occupational Health and Safety bulletin to assist Alberta employers and workers understand the impact of the recent amendments to the federal WHMIS legislation.
A constructor that argued the ‘mistake of fact’ due diligence defence was instead found to have made a ‘mistake of law’ and was convicted of a charge under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Life in Canada is getting harder for firms as commodities prices fall and work volumes slow
Which firms are cutting it in this era of slimline rosters, and who are the GC new brooms making clean sweeps? The Lawyer can reveal all