Can versus should – what’s legal’s role in enforcement and the spirit of the rules?

Speakers

  • Dr. Helen Taylor (Deputy Director, Spotlight on Corruption)
  • Judy Krieg (Former Joint Head of Fraud, Bribery & Corruption, Serious Fraud Office)

The top three themes we explored in this session were…

  1. What happens when legal is asked to prioritise what’s possible over what’s principled?
  2. How do you navigate internal resistance and protect your professional integrity?
  3. What practical steps can in-house teams take when faced with ethical ambiguity or corruption risks?

These are the top 3 things that attendees should take away from the session:

  • Legal’s job isn’t just to interpret the rules, but to shape ethical decisions.

Being the conscience of the business is uncomfortable, but vital. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it aligns with organisational purpose or public trust. When risk and ethics clash, legal must hold the line and know when to escalate.

  • Silence isn’t neutral, it creates exposure.

If a general counsel or in-house lawyer is aware of serious allegations (like corruption or potential bribery), doing nothing, or simply following orders, may expose the company and the individual. Document concerns, understand professional obligations, and assess if/when external reporting is required.

  • Plan before a crisis.

The most effective in-house teams build relationships with non-executive directors, audit committees, and trusted external counsel before an issue escalates. They also understand the costs and implications of self-reporting versus internal remediation, including legal fees, D&O insurance, shareholder impact, and human fallout.