header-logo header-logo

Crackdown on non-disclosure agreements proposed

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

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
A highly unusual nuisance case is explored by James Naylor, partner at Naylor Solicitors, in NLJ this week
Tech companies will be legally required to prevent material that encourages or assists serious self-harm appearing on their platforms, under Online Safety Act 2023 regulations due to come into force in the autumn
back-to-top-scroll