While all industries that handle valuable data have been subject to increasing levels of cyber attack, there is a set of inter-related factors in the law firm cyber security ecosystem that makes such firms more susceptible to attack and also serves to prevent them from taking action to counteract attack vulnerability. As a result of the inter-related external and internal factors affecting law firm cyber security, the human element of firm security infrastructure has been neglected, thereby making humans, at once law firms’ greatest asset, their main cyber security weakness. 1There has been some movement of late, and regulators and clients alike are right to demand law firms do more to improve their cyber security posture.2 However, much of the scrutiny to which their conduct has been subjected has tended to overlook the complexities of the law firm cyber security quagmire, and unless these issues are addressed in the context of a potential solution, meaningful change is not While all industries that handle valuable data have been subject to increasing levels of cyber attack, there is a set of inter-related factors in the law firm cyber security ecosystem that makes such firms more susceptible to attack and also serves to prevent them from taking action to counteract attack vulnerability. As a result of the inter-related external and internal factors affecting law firm cyber security, the human element of firm security infrastructure has been neglected, thereby making humans, at once law firms’ greatest asset, their main cyber security weakness. 1There has been some movement of late, and regulators and clients alike are right to demand law firms do more to improve their cyber security posture.2 However, much of the scrutiny to which their conduct has been subjected has tended to overlook the complexities of the law firm cyber security quagmire, and unless these issues are addressed in the context of a potential solution, meaningful change is not While all industries that handle valuable data have been subject to increasing levels of cyber attack, there is a set of inter-related factors in the law firm cyber security ecosystem that makes such firms more susceptible to attack and also serves to prevent them from taking action to counteract attack vulnerability. As a result of the inter-related external and internal factors affecting law firm cyber security, the human element of firm security infrastructure has been neglected, thereby making humans, at once law firms’ greatest asset, their main cyber security weakness. 1There has been some movement of late, and regulators and clients alike are right to demand law firms do more to improve their cyber security posture.2 However, much of the scrutiny to which their conduct has been subjected has tended to overlook the complexities of the law firm cyber security quagmire, and unless these issues are addressed in the context of a potential solution, meaningful change is not likely. Part 1 of this paper outlines the current threat landscape and details the integral role of human error in successful cyber breaches before turning to discuss recent cyber security incidents involving law firms. In Part 2, we analyse elements of law firm short-termism and the underregulation of law firm cyber security conduct and how these, when combined, play a key role in shaping law firm cyber security posture. Finally, in Part 3 we outline a realistic solution, incorporating principles from behavioural science and modern technological developments.

In contrast to as in other jurisdictions, such as the United States or the UK, out-of-court legal services in Germany are strictly regulated by a statute, the Legal Services Act, which came into force nearly a decade ago and superseded the former Legal Counsel Act (Rechtsberatungsgesetz). According to this act, out-of-court legal services must be expressly permitted and are, in principle, reserved to lawyers. Consequently, there are certain legal restrictions for tech providers offering legal services in Germany that must be observed. The following article deals with the scope and limits for offering legal services by legal tech providers in Germany according to the German Legal Services Act. The author explains why some legal tech business solutions offering legal services may be in conflict with this act, which is a significant issue of compliance for both legal tech start-ups and their investors. Entrepreneurs, stakeholders of legal tech start-ups and capital investors should weigh the economic opportunities and legal risks carefully before placing a legal tech start-up on the German market.

No description available.

The scientific field of compliance is in a constant state of movement, gaining in complexity and widening its areas of application. We have taken this edition of CEJ as an occasion to pick up the threads of previous issues, to deepen the discussion and to take the thoughts a step further.

New technologies not only present new opportunities but also new legal challenges. However, it could be expected that the use of robotics and AI will steadily increase over the next few years. Liability considerations are therefore urgently required.

Within this short essay, we provide an overview of the development of “big data” and its possible influence on medical practice. In particular, we explore the underlying technology and demonstrate with practical examples how big data will sooner or later lead to the dissolution of economic consulting and treatment monopoly of classical medicine.

In June 2018, the German Constitutional Court decided on the search of a law firm and the securing of documents and data in the firm’s premises by the Public Prosecutors’ Office. The Court rejected the respective constitutional complaints and regarded the prosecutions’measures as lawful. The Court’s orders received immense public attention as the constitutional complaints were filed by Volkswagen AG, Jones Day, and the firm’s lawyer in connection with the “diesel emissions scandal”. Besides, the orders were discussed intensely among legal experts, as the Court severely limited legal privilege in Germany. This article examines the Court’s orders and its consequences, in particular with regard to internal investigations. In addition, the authors draw a comparison with legal privilege under U.S. law and discuss possible options to avoid extensive disclosure of documents and data. Finally, they demand legislative action and request the legislator to provide adequate safeguards for internal investigations.

In the end of 2015, the legislative yuan of Taiwan reformed the criminal confiscatory system in a significant way. The core idea of the new provision is to abolish the quality of subordinate sentence of criminal confiscation and make it an independent effect different from penalty and rehabilitative measure. The most important reforms are types the confiscation of criminal benefits a balanced measure quasi-unjustified enrichment, adds provisions about confiscating criminal incomes of third-party, and judges can announce confiscation independently, which are based on the spirit of depriving criminal benefits as far as possible. Besides, legislators also proclaimed the retroactive effect of the new provision. Nevertheless, this article will point out that the new provision promotes the modernization of criminal confiscatory system, but in some places violates the constitutional law.

Economic and tax crimes account for a significant proportion of criminal activity and result in considerable economic damage. In Germany, two of the most prominent offenders in this area in recent years were Thomas Middelhoff and Uli Hoeneß, both of whom served jail sentences. Taking advantage of the widespread media coverage of both cases, the following paper draws on economic theory to compare prison terms with fines. It argues that fines are preferred from an economic perspective and can therefore be considered a useful firstchoice punishment in cases involving white-collar and tax crimes. The paper sees itself in this regard as a plea.

How do multinationals create a glocal identity of compliance? This article focuses on putting this quest to an end, dissecting multidisciplinary approaches to solve the compliance glocalization problematics. It starts with the saga of the glocalization neologism, followed by the philosophical- and psychodynamics of compliance and its moral foundations in Kantianism, the development of integrity into actual business ethics and the vehemence of crosscultural awareness and management when doing business internationally. Finally, it establishes the Three Stages Theory and the EMB Guidelines for the glocalization of leadership, as the ordinary solution to compliance glocalization.