Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorClark, T
dc.contributor.authorMoorhead, R
dc.contributor.authorVaughan, S
dc.contributor.authorBrener, A
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-15T14:55:19Z
dc.date.issued2022-04-06
dc.date.updated2021-11-15T12:30:34Z
dc.description.abstractIn this article, we look at the contested role of in-house lawyers in regulated organisations in the financial sector. A recent Financial Conduct Authority consultation on whether to designate the head of legal of banks, insurance companies and other financial firms as ‘Senior Managers’ and the decision which flowed from it, reflected a flawed view of lawyers as a neutral technocracy of mere legal technicians; we show how the FCA’s decision is potentially damaging to the public interest and failed to take into account that in-house lawyers are often important decision-makers and influencers within their organisations. We put the case for an alternative view; that in-house lawyers are professionals, with agency that requires them to act in accordance with ethical norms and means they should be made more accountable for their conduct.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationPublished online 6 April 2022en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/1460728x.2022.2059742
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/127811
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0003-1765-4134 (Moorhead, Richard)
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherRoutledgeen_GB
dc.rights© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.en_GB
dc.titleAgency over technocracy: how lawyer archetypes infect regulatory approaches: the FCA exampleen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2021-11-15T14:55:19Z
dc.identifier.issn1757-8450
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available on open access from Routledge via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.identifier.journalLegal Ethicsen_GB
dc.relation.ispartofLegal Ethics
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-09-24
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2021-09-24
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2021-11-15T12:30:36Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.dateFOA2022-04-28T12:48:23Z
refterms.panelCen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.