Can a professional person be used as witness at a management meeting if under legal confidentiality

[trajan]

Hypothetical Situation

A low-to-middle rank exec employed by an asset management company notices a loophole in investment selection processes that might give rise to both financial loss to clients and harm to the reputation of the asset management company. Telling their immediate boss doesn't evoke the sort of reaction the exec thinks the danger merits. The exec requests a direct meeting with a senior manager using an internal process that allows execs to go "over the head" of their immediate boss.

Fearing the senior manager may also stonewall on the scale of the risk and perhaps even misrepresent or deny the meeting occurred, the exec brings along a trusted professional in that field to act as an intelligent witness on the exec's side. (The exec could of course have brought their family solicitor but as the discussion would be quite technical the solicitor might not appreciate all the significance of the senior manager's responses and his testimony might be compromised by such a lack of expertise.) The witness professional is not an employee or an employee of a firm that does business with the asset management company. As this meeting will inevitably expose internal matters to the external witness and since the latter could exploit this information, is it sufficient that the witness professional signs an oath of confidentiality regarding the matters discussed at the meeting ? Or can the management company refuse to allow any witness other than a lawyer ?

 

[messyleo]

Absolutely yes. In fact, I would have thought they could refuse a solicitor also.
It's not a disciplinary meeting

 

[trajan]

Absolutely yes. In fact, I would have thought they could refuse a solicitor also.
It's not a disciplinary meeting

So if the exec wants to have proof of having informed senior management then he/she must also do so in writing and register post it ?

This seems a bit daft if the company has a formal process of going "over the head" of one's immediate boss. I mean why have a process in which the company's senior management can plausibly deny that such-and-such was actually said. It also takes away the capacity of the senior manager to personally engage with the exec and "feel" their sincerity or lack of it, as well as the seriousness of the situation. Anyone can write a letter with a tone of urgency, etc.

 

[faketales]

I can’t imagine a scenario where they would allow a non employee or family solicitor be present. I have never seen such a situation.

The message to the senior manager is that you don’t trust them.

Is it feasible that there may just be different technical view on the level of risk.

Is email an option or another employer who you trust. Why not meet first and then look to alternative if you don’t believe it gets a fair response.

 

[Annieindublin]

So theres a problem with the internal company specific processes? Nope. Can’t see a third party being there in any capacity.

If the problem is breaching Central Bank rules then it might be a different matter. There should be a designated person to oversee that. Or you can go to the CBI directly with a protected disclosure

 

[trajan]

The message to the senior manager is that you don’t trust them.

The exec in this situation may be concerned that, as they are in the function most likely to detect such a flaw in investment decisions, they are most likely to be Shanghaied with the blame when eventually it does blow up.

To that end the exec has to cover themselves against what could be a terminal blow to their career. Hence the need for proof of having informed senior management when their immediate manager showed no alacrity whatever on the matter.

The use of a witness or registered letter of notification is a message to the senior manager that surely is:

"I believe that this is a very serious matter for the company's clients, the company itself and for my professional probity especially, sir."

 

[trajan]

If the problem is breaching Central Bank rules then it might be a different matter. There should be a designated person to oversee that. Or you can go to the CBI directly with a protected disclosure

The CBI trip would surely be the thing to do after an approach to senior management had failed to be taken seriously - at least for a matter that could be readily corrected, which is what is concerned here.

It might be that the exec would feel it expedient to have moved to another employer ahead of the CBI meeting.

But it's possible that the CBI regulations may not be breached even though a clearly risky situation actually exists. A sort of slow-burner problem where the exploiters haven't yet copped on to the loophole and started using it.

 

[Annieindublin]

yup

CBI after speaking with a designated person in the company assuming there is one.

CBI are interested in potential problems, you don’t need to wait until someone loses money. Usually the company will have to self report if there’s a weakness in the process.