Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-px5tt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-12T12:14:30.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

41 - Third Party and Appointed Monitorships

from Part VII - Management and Organizational Processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2021

By
Veronica Root Martinez
Edited by
Benjamin van Rooij  and
D. Daniel Sokol
Benjamin van Rooij
Affiliation:
School of Law, University of Amsterdam
D. Daniel Sokol
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Get access

Summary

Abstract: This chapter outlines the history and use of monitors in various contexts, beginning with the original conception of a court-appointed monitor and ending with the more recent development of the public relations and modern-day court-ordered monitor. It next discusses how the specific type of monitorship alters the duties and confidentiality expectations of the parties to the monitorship in both formal and informal ways. Next, it analyzes the sparse regulation of monitorships, suggesting that reputation may currently be the most effective limit on monitor overreach and capture. Finally, it ends by proposing two areas for scholarly focus going forward: (1) mechanisms for formally regulating monitors, and (2) empirical study of the overall effectiveness of monitorships.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance , pp. 605 - 615
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

American Bar Association. 2019. “Model Rules of Professional Conduct.” www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents/.Google Scholar
American Bar Association. 2020. “ABA Standards for Criminal Justice Monitors and Monitoring.” February 20. www.americanbar.org/products/inv/book/395343871/.Google Scholar
American Bar Association. n.d. “Monitor Standards.” www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/standards/MonitorsStandards.html.Google Scholar
Barkow, Anthony S., Barofsky, Neil M., and Perrelli, Thomas J.. 2019. The Guide to Monitorships. London: Law Business Research Ltd. https://jenner.com/system/assets/publications/19193/original/GIR%20The%20Guide%20to%20Monitorships%20full%20book.pdf?1565117673.Google Scholar
Diamantis, Mihailis E. 2019. “An Academic Perspective.” In The Guide to Monitorships, edited by Barkow, Anthony S., Barofsky, Neil M., and Perrelli, Thomas J., 75–84. London: Law Business Research Ltd.Google Scholar
Ford, Cristie, and Hess, David. 2009. “Can Corporate Monitorships Improve Corporate Compliance?” Journal of Corporation Law 34: 679–737.Google Scholar
Garrett, Brandon. 2014. Too Big to Jail. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Holder, Eric Jr.. 1999. “Memorandum to All Component Heads and U.S. Attorneys.” U.S. Department of Justice. June 16. www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-fraud/legacy/2010/04/11/charging-corps.PDF.Google Scholar
International Association of Independent Corporate Monitors (IAICM). 2016. “Preamble.” Code of Professional Conduct. Last modified December 16, 2016. http://iaicm.org/about-independent-corporate-monitors/code-of-conduct/.Google Scholar
Khanna, Vikramaditya, and Dickinson, Timothy L.. 2007. “The Corporate Monitor: The New Corporate Czar?” Michigan Law Review 105: 1713–55.Google Scholar
Larence, Eileen R. 2009. “Prosecutors Adhered to Guidance in Selecting Monitors for Deferred Prosecution and Non-prosecution Agreements, but DOJ Could Better Communicate Its Role in Resolving Conflicts.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, November 19. www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-260T.Google Scholar
Morford, Craig S. 2008. “Memorandum for Heads of Department Components and United States Attorneys.” U.S. Department of Justice, March 7. www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/dag/legacy/2008/03/20/morford-useofmonitorsmemo-03072008.pdf.Google Scholar
Root, Veronica. 2014. “The Monitor-Client Relationship.” Virginia Law Review 100: 523–85.Google Scholar
Root, Veronica. 2016. “Modern-Day Monitorships.” Yale Journal on Regulation 33: 109–63.Google Scholar
Root, Veronica. 2017. “Constraining Monitors.” Fordham Law Review 85: 2227–47.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×