header-logo header-logo

03 May 2023
Issue: 8023 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Disciplinary&grievance procedures
printer mail-detail

Crackdown on non-disclosure agreements proposed

Legal regulators are considering tougher rules on non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) following a series of controversies in recent years. 

The Legal Services Board (LSB) launched a call for evidence this week on the misuse of NDAs. While it acknowledges the majority of NDAs are used legitimately to protect commercial sensitivities, it wants to explore the scale, extent and nature of misuse, understand why lawyers breach their ethical obligations, and consider ways to improve regulatory controls.

The #MeToo movement raised public awareness of NDA misuse: for example, NDAs were used to cover up the sexual assaults of Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. As the LSB highlights, NDAs can be used to conceal discrimination, harassment and bullying in a range of sectors, where ‘vulnerable individuals who are the targets of discrimination, harassment or abuse may be asked or coerced through an imbalance of power to sign [NDAs]’.

The LSB identifies several scenarios where NDAs could be lawful but unethical: for example, where a vulnerable individual does not understand their full rights and responsibilities but signs to end a grievance process. NDAs may also ‘perpetuate systemic imbalances of power’, and may ‘indirectly encourage or at least facilitate further criminal or inappropriate acts by protecting an individual who goes on to commit them’.

Matthew Hill, LSB chief executive, said: ‘We want to make sure that regulation supports—and, where necessary, insists on—standards of conduct that ensure, as far as possible, that NDAs are never used to cover up wrongdoing, silence victims or deprive people unwittingly of their rights.

‘This is something everyone across the sector should be concerned about, and we want to work collaboratively to ensure NDAs—which have a legitimate and important role to play in a wide range of circumstances—are always used appropriately and ethically. We’re interested in hearing from anyone with a view on this topic—whether the real experience of people who have been subject to misuse of NDAs, practitioners in this or related fields, regulators, representative bodies and others—to help identify solutions that uphold public confidence.’

The call for evidence, which runs until 14 July, can be viewed on the LSB website here.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll