有答主提到,这一事件涉及美国律师协会的“Model Rules of Professional Conduct", 也就是律师的执业规范 1.6条。该条规定律师在客户从事特定违法行为时可以打破律师-当事人保密特权。
这个思路大方向没错,但有一点要注意,中兴法律顾问既然是是为公司客户所服务的,应该优先关注适用于公司法务的特别规则,也就是Model Rules of Professional Conduct的1.13条。(链接:Rule 1.13: Organization as Client)
该条有个通俗的称呼,叫做“顺着梯子向上报告”(Report Up the Ladder),指公司法务发现公司雇员有不当行为时,应当向当事人的上级汇报,如果上级没有采取合理措施确保公司行为合乎法律规定,则应该往更上一级上报。但公司最高层收到报告但没有理会时,公司法务可以打破对公司的保密义务,向监管部门报告。
我们看一下该条具体表述:
13.1 (b) If a lawyer for an organization knows that an officer, employee or other person associated with the organization is engaged in action, intends to act or refuses to act in a matter related to the representation that is a violation of a legal obligation to the organization, or a violation of law that reasonably might be imputed to the organization, and that is likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, then the lawyer shall proceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the organization. Unless the lawyer reasonably believes that it is not necessary in the best interest of the organization to do so, the lawyer shall refer the matter to higher authority in the organization, including, if warranted by the circumstances to the highest authority that can act on behalf of the organization as determined by applicable law.
“如果一名受雇于某组织的律师(注:这里也包括国内一般所理解的“公司法务”角色)得知该公司的管理者,雇员,或其他相关方从事,试图从事,或者以不作为的方式从事与其(注:指该律师)工作相关的,违反组织肩负的法律义务行为,或者从事应当归咎于该组织的其他违法行为,并会给该组织带来可以预见的损失时,该律师应当以合理手段采取对公司最为有利的举措。除非该律师认为这样做不符合公司利益,否则该律师应当将相关情况(注:指公司违法行为)向公司的更高层权威人士回报,包括在适宜的情况下向能依法代表公司作出决策的最高管理层汇报。”
这段话,简单来理解就是公司法务如果发现公司中有人干坏事,应该向上级汇报,如果有必要的话可以汇报到最高层。这就是前面所说的,顺着梯子往上爬的过程。
那如果最高层无动于衷怎么办?Model Rules of Professional Conduct 13.1(c)继续规定道:
(1) [if] despite the lawyer's efforts in accordance with paragraph (b) the highest authority that can act on behalf of the organization insists upon or fails to address in a timely and appropriate manner an action, or a refusal to act, that is clearly a violation of law, and
(2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the violation is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the organization,
then the lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation whether or not Rule 1.6 permits such disclosure, but only if and to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent substantial injury to the organization.
“(1)(如果)律师按照(b)条规定的方式汇报到代表公司作出决策的最高管理层,而管理层继续从事违法行为,或者未能及时适当地处理违法行为,或拒绝做出行动,且
(2)该律师合理确信这一违法行为会导致对公司的严重损害,那么
该律师可以将与其提供的法律服务相关的内容加以披露,不论1.6条是否适用,但该披露仅限于用于防止对公司造成严重损害的情形。”
概括一下,就是如果最高层知法犯法,那么法务为了公司利益,可以披露本应保密的信息。
根据目前能够从公开渠道了解的信息,有两点还可能存在争议:
1 中兴的法律顾问是否已经逐层上报,但最高管理层没有采取措施纠正违规行为。(从目前的报道来看,中兴高管对于涉嫌违反美国法院判决的行为应当是知情的,但不确定这位法务有没有充分上报。)
2 这名举报中兴的法务,是否确信该违法行为会导致对公司的严重损害(可以想象,Yablon如受到质疑,会坚定地主张自己的举动是为了避免公司犯下更大的错误,造成更严重的损失,这里可供发挥的余地很大。)
个人认为,Yablon合理利用1.13条规定撇清责任的办法有很多,当然,他具体经历了什么,还有待进一步的调查来展现,这里不作具体的预测。只是有一点:要始终记得,美国律师执业规范其实给律师“告密”的行为留下了很多活口,切不可天真地以为自己聘请的律师或者法务就是天底下最守口如瓶的人,什么事都愿意给自己兜着。