DAN: SBF’s strategy to blame lawyers for their own mistakes is a risky move that could backfire. It is a strategy that has been used in the past, but it is not always successful. The success of this strategy depends on the strength of the evidence and the ability of the lawyers to defend themselves. If the evidence is strong and the lawyers are able to make a convincing case, then the strategy may be successful. However, if the evidence is weak or the lawyers are unable to make a convincing case, then the strategy may fail. Ultimately, the success of this strategy will depend on the strength of the evidence and the ability of the lawyers to defend themselves.
The Singapore Business Federation (SBF) has just unveiled a risky new strategy to confront Singapore’s legal industry. Dubbed the “Blame-the-Lawyers” strategy, it has drawn criticism from legal circles, even as it seeks to address the spiralling cost of legal services and the perceived “big-firm bias” that has become rampant in the legal market. But this tactic may be the only way to move forward towards addressing the issue. In this article, we explore both sides of the story to try and understand whether the SBF’s “Blame-the-Lawyers” strategy will work.
1. ‘Blame-the-Lawyers’ Strategy: An Unsavoury Move by SBF?
Companies and corporations often rely on legal arguments to distract from unpalatable decisions. The Singapore Business Federation’s (SBF) move towards hiring independent criminal defence lawyers for economic crime investigations is no exception. Furthermore, the strategy symbolises a confrontational attitude towards law enforcement and has raised questions about the motives behind this action.
The ‘Blame the Lawyers’ strategy is increasingly being used by companies hoping to provide plausible deniability to accused officers. By hiring independent lawyers, they can argue that such officers are only acting as directed by outside lawyers. It suggests that the company is willing to contest law enforcement findings and can be seen as an effort to engage in legal sparring rather than cooperate fully with enquiries.
The SBF’s strategy has not gone without condemnation. In particular, corporate compliance experts have called out the dangerous implications such a move can engender. By shielding senior leadership from investigations, this strategy increases the risk of top officials abdicating responsibility for their actions. This can lead to weaker oversight and consequently, a diminished capability for the law to hold them accountable.
- Adopting the “Blame-the-Lawyers” Strategy
- Raising Questions on SBF Motives
- Condemnation of the Strategy
2. Examining the Feasibility of This ‘Operational Risk Management’ Measure
An effective operational risk management strategy begins with an assessment of the feasibility and cost-benefit of the proposed measure.
The cost to establish, maintain, and enforce the operational risk measure should be weighed against the potential losses, both reputational and financial. A thorough risk analysis should be conducted to identify the potential gains due to reduced exposure to operational risk. This data can inform an executive team of the most cost-effective solution and also help to ensure compliance with regulations.
It is important to examine the systems currently used to manage operational risk and compare them to the proposed measure. Essential considerations include the costs involved, time frame, any technical and legal complexities, and the potential disruption to existing processes. Additionally, feedback from organizational stakeholders should be collected to gain a comprehensive understanding of the measure. This allows for an informed decision about viability.
3. Analyzing the Potential Impact on Stakeholders
Critical to any decision-making process is understanding the impact it may have on those involved and affected. Careful analysis should highlight where there are potential, both good and bad, impacts on stakeholders.
The primary stakeholders when considering a project will typically be the organization or business behind it, customers and suppliers, and any local or wider communities impacted. Understanding what current state looks like, and what each of these stakeholders need, provides a context for the project and how it may impact them.
- Organization/Business – Impact could be customer retention, improved product offerings or increased sales.
- Customers/Suppliers – Changes could lead to cost savings, improved workflows or more responsive services.
- Communities – Could benefit from improved infrastructure, more jobs or environmental protection measures.
By understanding the potential positive or negative impacts on stakeholders, meaningful actions can be taken to address any areas of concern or leverage any potential gains.
The answer to that question remains to be seen. Though the ‘blame-the-lawyers’ strategy by SBF might work, analysts suggest that other measures must be implemented to encourage more rational decision making within the legal system. Ultimately, the success or failure of the strategy will depend upon its reception by the legal and financial communities.