Lawyer

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "La définition juridique du Contrat de compliance (The legal definition of the compliance contract)", in Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) published by the Centre for Research on Justice and Conflict Resolution (CRJ) and the Centre for Research in Economics and Law (CRED) at Panthéon-Assas University (Paris II), Le "Contrat de compliance" (The "Compliance Contract"),  Paris II Lecture Theatre –  82 Rue Notre Dame des Champs, Paris, 12 June  2026. - 🧮view the full programme for the event - 📶view the slides (in French) - 🌐read the presentation made on LinkedIn - 🚧Read the bilingual working paper on which this conference is based   - 📝This lecture will form the basis of a contribution to the book, 📕Compliance et Contrat (Compliance and Contracts),  To be published in the 📚Regulations & Compliance series, a book co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz. - ► Overview of this lecture : The lecture is divided into three parts. In the first part, the aim is to describe the reality of the “Compliance Contract”, which can be defined as the decision taken by an entity subject to a “Compliance Obligation” (most often a company, but it may also be a administrative organisation) to entrust the fulfilment of that obligation to a third party. This does not diminish the entity’s obligation to be accountable for the compliance structure, nor for its ability to produce the expected outcomes, in particular the behaviours that will contribute to achieving the Monumental Systemic Goals for which the compliance frameworks were adopted. This outsourcing is lawful; its contractual form falls under Contract Law and the principle of contractual freedom. Even if one considers that, since the subject matter of the contract is Compliance itself, it would constitute a ‘Systemic Contract’—just as Compliance Litigation is ‘Systemic Litigation’—its fundamental nature is indeed a bilateral relationship between a client and a professional (who is often subject to professional rules and codes of conduct). Indeed, there are legal consequences to this practice of “Compliance Contracts”, because it is the Compliance System that is thereby served: on the one hand, “regulatory clauses” will be inserted, whilst others will be removed (“deemed unwritten”). Contractual freedom remains the guiding principle, however. In Contract Law, it would be appropriate for the contracting parties to refer to this contribution to the Monumental Goals, which constitute the  fundamental legal norm of the Compliance System, if only to guide the contract Judge who may be called upon in the event of a dispute, as the interpretation of the parties’ intentions must be carried out in a teleological manner. In the second part, the relationship between this "Compliance Contract" and the various "Compliance Clauses" is analysed. The two should certainly not be confused, since, quite apart from these highly specific contracts through which the various compliance techniques are entrusted, in their drafting and management, to third parties, who thus become the experts, there are also clauses inserted into numerous contracts (sales, distribution, manufacturing, service, etc.), clauses which aim, amongst many other clauses serving different purposes, to incorporate compliance considerations into the contract. But first and foremost, the Compliance Contract contains numerous clauses specific to it, which often derive from compliance system, since Compliance concretisation is the very purpose of this specific contract, et nothing else: it is therefore logical that, by way of a ‘transparency effect’, the legal Compliance Systemic requirements should be incorporated into the isolated contract. Secondly, and more significantly, many various contracts contain clauses that provide for the triggering of a “Compliance Ccontract”. For example, when an audit clause is linked to a specific event and the provision stipulates that a contract will then be entered into with a particular expertal body or person, this will generate a Compliance Contract in a second time. The link between the two may give one of the contracting parties control over the other, notably if the expert is close to them. If the links between Compliance Contracts and Compliance Clauses are developping, this could lead to a return to vertical integration. Competition Law may be justified in looking into this.  It appears that, once we have distinguished between Compliance Contracts and Compliance Clauses, and then linked them together, we can arrive at a Contractual Compliance Strategy that is both legitimate and effective, provided that it contributes to the achievement of the Compliance Monumental Goals set by the political and public authorities.  Indeed, as soon as we distinguish between “conformity” – which is intended solely to compel the operator to obey all applicable regulations blindly and mechanically – and “Compliance Law”, which is legally guided by Monumental Systemic Goals, this contractual strategy becomes essential.   Part Three sets out to clarify the scope of this Compliance Contract. The first implication concerns the Compliance System itself, of which it forms a part; the Compliance Contract having the welcome effect of increasing the operator’s contribution to the achievement of the Monumental Systemic Goals (ensuring that systems – banking, financial, transport, energy, climate, digital, etc.—do not collapse and do not crush human beings, but rather benefit the human beings who are involved in them, whether willingly or not). To this end, the contract must enable the operator – where necessary by means of express provisions – to demonstrate its credibility in contributing to the achievement of these Monumental Goals. Reliable pathways and credible structures must be established. In the cas of technical implementation is outsourced by a Compliance Contract, this obligation to provide evidence may be undermined. To compensate for this, the Compliance Contract may itself include provisions relating to portable technical information, support available through the client's accountability mechanism, or even in the event of legal proceedings. The second aspect concerns the contractors themselves, who adapt their intentions and are bound, above all, by this “little law” which is any contract for the parties. This perspective is surprisingly underdeveloped in practice, no doubt because in Law, when considering Compliance, reference is made to unilateral “regulations” and the vertical relationship of obedience that it engenders in the operator.  This changes with the transformation of "conformity" (which is that) in "Compliance Law" (which is based on Monumental Systemic Goals and justifies contracts). The third aspect concerns third parties, namely the stakedholders (and competitors…). These third parties benefit from Compliance Contracts because they are integrated into the Compliance System and because of the transparency between this system and the Compliance Contracts. In fact, and more technically speaking, this specific Cgreement provides them not only with a accountable(the company, the public body, the State), but also with a contractual debtor. Stakeholders may assert rights against the latter. However, because the contracts themselves are also enforceable against third parties, they can anticipate these relationships with third parties – not only the competitors of the entity subject to the Compliance Obligation, but also its own relationship with stakeholders, and even its relationship with public authorities. Indeed, the object (and effect) of the Compliance Contract is to produce and build up Information that is of interest to everyone. The result is a ‘treasure trove of evidence’. A key question is how, and whether, this treasure trove can remain within the circle of the contracting parties or not. Indeed, the fourth area concerns Public Authorities. As the bodies that “uphold” the compliance system, they consider the Compliance Contract to be legitimate and one of the most effective means of ensuring that regulations are effective, efficient and properly enforced; however, they also wish to benefit from the outcome of the contract’s implementation: to access the systemic information it generates. The contracting parties do not always share this view, but the Compliance Contract is not a means of “obeying” regulations. It is the Judge who will certainly address this question of principle, which relates to the very definition of Compliance Law. This brings us to the fifth area of application, which concerns the Courts. Indeed, a number of courts are responsible for hearing such cases: the contract courts, the competition courts, the courts overseeing the various systems whose sustainability is thus safeguarded, and the courts specialising in vigilance legal duty  (which is the cutting edge of Compliance Law).  The issue of the “natural judge” was examined at the symposium held on 29 May 2026 on: Contractual litigation involving compliance: procedural and jurisdictional aspects. The judge hearing the contract case (civil or commercial judge) will tend to refer first and foremost to the contract. This is also why the Compliance Contract conceptor would be well advised to include provisions in its terms regarding its relationship with the Compliance System, so that it is not the authorities of that system who do so in a too much discretionary manner. In understanding the "Compliance Contract", as Iit was emphasised in 2022, in the judge’s interpretation of the contract, the judge is required to reconcile the parties’ intentions with a teleological approach, that is to say, to establish that the parties intended to serve the purpose of the expertise thus requested and developed (for the operator and ultimately for the stakeholders and for the system itself).  By establishing this convergence, the judge gives full effect to the Cmpliance Contract. Rather than framing the issue, as is so often done when reasoning in terms of ‘conformity’, as a conflict between contractual freedom and public policy (conformity serving a public policy that would be contrary to the contract, inferior norm in the vertical normative hiercharchy).  It must be accepted as a fundamental principle that contractual freedom, freedom of contract and a competitive market for compliance expertise are the most effective means of developing a Compliance System that will safeguard interconnected  different systems and protect the people involved in them. - ⛏️Find out more  : 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance contract, compliance clauses, 2022 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, ⚙️Compliance and Contracts, - 🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang 🌐Subscribe to the MaFR Law & Art newsletter

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Compliance Law and Systemic Litigation, Working Paper, August 2025. - 📝 This bilingual Working Paper is the basis of the article published in French "Droit de la compliance et contentieux systémique" - ► Summary of this Working Paper: Legal systems have changed, and Compliance Law, in its uniqueness, reflects this change and plays a powerful role in it. New sets of compliance rules, particularly at European Union level, covering data protection (GDPR), anti-money laundering (AMLA), climate balance protection (CS3D) and banking and financial system sustainability (Banking Union), have been developed and imposed on large companies, which must implement them: alerts, mapping, assessment, sanctions, etc. These new regulatory frameworks only make sense in relation to their ‘Monumental Goals’: to detect systemic risks ex ante and prevent crises so that the systems in question do not collapse, but ‘last’. All the legal instruments in the corpus are normatively rooted in these monumental goals, which are the core that unifies Compliance Law (I). The judge is the guardian of this new and highly ambitious regulatory framework, which relies on the practical ability of companies to implement it (II). Courts ensure that the legal technical provisions are applied in a teleological manner in each of these compliance blocks and that the regulations support each other, because all compliance regulations serve the same systemic goal: to ensure that the systems (banking, financial, climate, digital, energy, etc.) do not collapse, but sustains, and that present and future human beings are not crushed by them, but rather benefit from them. This unity is still little perceived because so meticulous regulations pulverise this profound unity of Compliance Law into a myriad of changing provisions. Entrusting the ‘regulatory mass’ to algorithms increases this fragmentation, making the whole even more incomprehensible and therefore impossible to handle. On the contrary, recognising the judge's place, i.e. at the centre, makes it possible to master this new branch of law. But the judge's sole function is not to restore clarity to a body of law covered by the dust of its own technicality. There is a transfer to Litigation of the systemic object of Compliance Law. Indeed, the litigation that emerges from the new Compliance Law is itself fundamentally new, by transitivity. Indeed, the purpose of Compliance Law is to make systems sustainable (or resilient, or robust, depending on the terminology used). This results in litigation that is itself ‘Systemic Litigation’ (III), most often brought by an organisation against a systemic operator. The place and role of each party are transformed (IV). - 🔓read the developments below⤵️ - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full Reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le juriste, requis et bien placé pour le futur" (The lawyer needed and well placed for the future), in Groupe Lamy Liaisons, Les Éclaireurs du Droit,  Hôtel de l’Industrie, Place Saint Germain des Près, Paris, 11 March 2025, 16h. - This speech opens a series of 4 workshops on the following themes: – The challenge of Trust – The challenge of Risk – The challenge of Transmission – The challenge of  leadership - 🧮see the full programme of this manifestation (in French) - ⬜see the slides basis made for this speech (which were not projected) (in French) - 🎥 watch the short video made after the conference (in French) - ► English Summary of this introductory conference: The 4 sessions will address the successive themes of trust, risk, transmission and leadership, which legal professionals are facing, particularly as a result of algorithms. For an introductory analysis, it is possible to make a distinction inside the Future. The future has a part of Stability: the jurist can contribute to this stability, i.e. the preservation of the past (I). The future has an part of Predictability: the lawyer must increase this part in the present itself (II). The future has a part of radical novelty (III): at this point, which may correspond to a precipice, if no one had imagined it, the lawyer can also be there. Until now, we think of lawyers more in the first 2 hypotheses, less in this one. Is it pertinent? In each of these dimensions, the algorithmic system (AI) is presented as replacing or dominating the human. In each of these 3 dimensions, Lawyers must be present, as they form a community that must remain united around the very idea of Law (algorithms do not conceive ideas, it is humans who transmit them to other humans, and the algorithmic system must remain a medium). As far as the Stability of the future is concerned, the Lawyer can and must contribute to it, in particular through Transmission, because there is less of a blank page as algorithmic 'creation' is based on past data, and training, where the human being will be all the more central as machines have to be handled. As far as the Predictability of the future is concerned, it is a question of assessing the Risks, whether specific or systemic, legal or non-legal, in order not to take them or on the contrary to take them. The more the Lawyer is involved in risk-taking, the more he or she will be in the right place, before and during the action. As far as the Radically New future is concerned, it is not easy to qualify AI as such or not, but now the possible disappearance of the Rule of Law in the United States is one of them. All Lawyer are expected. Every lawyer must have two virtues (which the algorithm cannot not have): the virtue of Justice and the virtue of Courage. It is these virtues that we must pass on and share.       - Current events have led me to devote the time available to me to focusing on a single perspective, the third, to say what is expected of Lawyers if we perceive something radically new in the near future, what everyone does. Indeed, in the United States, on the one hand there is a head of state for whom the Law does not exist and who uses the power of regulation to express his absolute indifference to other states, companies and human beings, and on the other an entrepreneur who claims that he is going to become the master of algorithmic technology, a system over which he already wields great power. Faced with this Radical Novelty, we expect the community of Lawyers, all lawyers, whatever their place, their technical mastery, their level, their nationality, to speak out and say No. As Kelsen, Cassin or Ginsberg did. Say No and help others to say No. To do this, Lawyers, as human beings who care about other human beings, must be aware of the twofold virtue expected of them: the virtue of commitment to Justice and the virtue of Courage.       - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐subscribe to the Video Newslette MAFR Surplomb

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Audition by the French National Assembly's Law Commission on the confidentiality of legal advice  (the "Legal Privilege à la française"), 8 April 2024. - I had expressed my opinion on the need for French legal system to better ensure the confidentiality of legal opinions drawn up by internal lawyers in companies, in an article published in 2023 in the French academic journal Recueil Dalloz: "La compliance, socle de la confidentialité nécessaire des avis juridiques élaborés en entreprise (Compliance Law, the cornerstone of the necessary confidentiality of legal opinions drawn up by companies". Compliance, the cornerstone of the necessary confidentiality of legal opinions drawn up by companies).  Following on from this article, and as a specialist in Regulatory and Compliance Law, I was invited by the French National Assembly's Law Commission to give my opinion on the proposed law n°2022 on the confidentiality of consultations by in-house lawyers ( Proposition de loi n°2022 relative à la confidentialité des consultations des juristes d'entreprises), often named in French Legal privilege à la française. -     ► Summary of this presentation: I have shown that we must start not from the person (external lawyer / in-house lawyer, for instance) and not even centrally from the information in question (branch of Law by branch of Law), but from the Goals pursued, i.e. from Compliance Law. In this respect, we must not be misled. We could do so by confusing mechanical "conformity" with this new branch of Law: Compliance Law. Conformity is merely a tool of Compliance Law. Out of concern for the correct use of the French language, as "Compliance" appears to many to be an American term, the proposed law uses the term "conformité" but refers to Compliance Law. Conformity" is merely the mechanical obligation to obey the applicable rules, which is the fate of any subject of law, subject to the mandatory rules, a passive position common to everyone in a State governed by the Rule of Law. Compliance Law is quite different, with conformity being just one of its tools. On the one hand, Compliance Law imposes an active obligation, and on the other, it targets only certain legal subjects: companies.  For them, it is a matter of ensuring that certain goals set by the legislator are actually achieved, which becomes effectively and efficiently possible thanks to the power of companies (financial power, organizational power, management power, information power, location power, information power). These "Monumental Goals" are either negative (preventing systems from collapsing) or positive (ensuring that systems improve). For companies to play this role – a role that is not required of other "ordinary" people, as they are not "in a position" to take on such a burden, particularly in terms of finance and organization – those in charge of organizing themselves and taking action, i.e. companies, must "detect and prevent" system failures (as required by laws such as US FCPA, French so-called Sapin 2 and Vigilance laws, European CSRD and CS3D, etc.). To "detect and prevent", which is an order from the Legislator, companies need to know the weaknesses of their organization and of the people they answer to, in order to remedy them: "remediation" is a "remedy" to ensure the "sustainability" of "systems". This set of key concepts lies at the heart of Compliance Law, the branch of law That focuses on the future. It is the legal opinions, for example, and in particular the report resulting from internal investigations, that enable those who decide and control this organization (the managers) to fulfill the role entrusted to them by the State. If these opinions are not confidential, the result is not the remediation and preservation of global systems (competitive, climatic, digital, energy, banking, financial systems, etc.): the effective managerial solution in Ex-Ante then consists not in seeking information but, conversely, in not seeking this information, since obtaining it will lead to the weakening of the company through the sanction that the information produces, for lack of confidentiality. The interests of the system, the State and the company are disjointed, because Compliance Law implies their alliance, which is what the confidentiality of legal opinions produces. This is why Compliance Law must, by its very nature, ensure the confidentiality of legal advice. -   When asked about the actual text of the proposal, I felt that the explanatory memorandum was particularly relevant, since the link between Compliance Law (admittedly called "conformité" in the proposed bill by a rather too mechanical respect for the French legal language, from which the French legislator has so far been unable to dispense….) is clear, that this confidentiality is attached to the document, that the company can waive it, and that it is clearly distinct from professional secrecy, all three of which should be approved. For my part, I've suggested a change to the procedure, which must be open to the confidentiality process. Indeed, public authorities, such as Competition and Regulatory Authorities, are rather hostile to this confidentiality. Having contributed a great deal to the development of Regulatory Law, and continuing to do so, I believe that Competition and Regulatory Authorities have a logic that needs to be understood. It is as follows: Regulatory Authorities are Ex-Ante (this was less true for the Competition Authorities, but it too is increasingly so) and are in a situation of information asymmetry. Their first concern is to combat this asymmetry. If we translate this into legal terms, it means that in order to carry out their mission of general interest, they must seek out all available information. However, legal opinions, and in particular the internal investigation report, are what I have described as "evidence treasure". In their logic, the Competition and Regulatory Authorities want to seize it. There is therefore a conflict between two general interest logics: the general interest of the Monumental Goals of Compliance Law actively served by companies, at the behest of the Legislation, which requires the confidentiality of legal opinions, and the general interest of the action of Regulators who fight against information asymmetry and seek to seize the evidential treasures of legal opinions. For the reasons given above, I believe that the Monumental Goals of Compliance must prevail. All the more so as the rights of the defence converge to this end. Ultimately, however, it is up to the Judge, in the event of open conflict, to balance these two claims, which are based on the service of the general interest.  However, reading the proposition, it seems to me that the rather complicated procedure entrusts this to a multiplicity of judges… But since it is indeed Compliance Law which is the best basis for "legal privilege à la française", Compliance Law, which is the extension of Regulatory Law and whose advanced point is the Vigilance duty, it would be more appropriate and logical to entrust this litigation to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Paris Judicial Court. This court has already the exclusive competence for litigation about Vigilance. This would have another fortunate effect: on appeal, the dispute would be brought before the Paris Court of Appeal, which has exclusive jurisdiction (barring exceptions) over disputes concerning decisions on French Competition and Regulatory Authorities. The judges of the "Pôle 5" (12 chambers specializing in economic law) of the very specific court are seasoned and would be well-suited to strike the necessary balance between the two general interests involved. I think a procedural amendment to the proposed text along these lines would be welcome. -   ► See in my work those that may be of interest with regard to this hearing (all with English summary, many with bilingual working paper) ⤵️   🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Le rôle du juge dans le déploiement du Droit de la Régulation par le Droit de la Compliance, in 📗Conseil d'État et Cour de cassation, De la Régulation à la Compliance : quel rôle pour le Juge ?, 2024.   🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance et conformité : les distinguer pour mieux les articuler, 2024. 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.),📕L'obligation de compliance, 2024. 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche et M. Boissavy (dir.), 📕Compliance et droits de la défense, 2024. 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), 📕Compliance et droits de la défense, Les Buts Monumentaux de la compliance,  2022. 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Contrat de compliance, clauses de compliance, 2022. 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Le Droit de la compliance, 2016. - 🌐 follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC : les lignes de force de l'ouvrage (Compliance and rights of the defence. Internal investigation – French Judicial Public Interest Agreement – French guilty plea procedure : the main themes of the book), Newsletter MAFR Law, Compliance, Regulation, March 5, 2024 - 📧Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR – Law, Compliance, Regulation - 🧱Compliance and rights of defense: a book to design them together to improve practices   The book Compliance et droits de la défense (Compliance and rights of the defence), co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC ) and Dalloz, takes as its starting point practices ranging from internal investigations to convention judiciaire d’intérêt public – CJIP (Judicial Public Interest Agreement) and comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité – CRPC (French guilty plea procedure), to measure the way in which Compliance makes room, or not, for the rights of the defense.   📧read the general presentation of the book and, in a very detailed presentation of the book's main points, the presentation of each of the contributions, published on March 5, 2024 in the Newsletter MAFR – Law, Compliance, Regulation - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche & M. Boissavy (eds.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC (Compliance and rights of the defence. Internal investigation – French Judicial Public Interest Agreement – French guilty plea procedure), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, "Régulations & Compliance" Serie, 2024, 362 p. - ► General presentation of the book:  We do not have an overall view of the relationship between Compliance and the rights of the defence in the continuum of internal investigations and DPA, or in the French legal system the convention judiciaire d'intérêt public (CJIP) and the comparution immédiate avec reconnaissance de culpabilité (CRPC), in particular because the texts, whether hard law or soft law, decisions and academic analyses segment them, making it difficult to build a pertinent appreciation of each one. This is made all the more difficult by the fact that we know little about how each of them is applied in practice, both within each of them and in relation to each other.  As a result, it is difficult to express overall satisfaction, or total rejection, or to suggest some specific reforms and to precise on what points, to identify the appropriate source of these improvements, legislation, case law, professions, or spontaneous ways of doing. The first ambition of this book is therefore to restore an overall vision, because this is the vision of practice. If shortcomings are found to exist, then they can be more easily denounced. However, some of the situations described may be described as flawed, or even dramatic, by some, while others may consider that they should be approved as they stand. This applies, for example, to the question of whether or not the investigation report should be secret from the prosecuting authority, which may propose a DPA (or in the French legal system a CJIP), whether or not this CJIP should be extended to individuals, whether or not a lawyer should be present from the internal investigation stage onwards, whether or not the lawyer should support the interests of the company he/she is investigating and continue to do so before the regulator or the prosecutor, whether or not the investigation is delegated from the public authorities to the company, whether or not the lawyer-investigator and then the lawyer-defendant are both lawyers, whether or not the victims are represented in the the CIPC process, etc. Depending on what one thinks the relation between Compliance and due process should be in principle and in practice, one expresses a more or less approving or severe judgement on the state of the texts, the soft law nature of most of them making the exercise complicated, and then if there is a gap between them and what one thinks should be the right standard, one asserts that in practice things happen differently from what the texts say, or one considers that the texts should be changed. From point to point, a veritable kaleidoscope emerges in this book. Indeed, the result is a series of contributions that sometimes clash with one another, with a sort of contradictionary principle creeping into the very structure of this book, thus establishing the readesr as a sort of judges themselves , that character who is so absent. He/she will be able to do so, since the book lists texts, describes practices and gives an illustration of everything that can be thought of, in visions that are sometimes analytical and sometimes global, with proposals of reforms of texts, jurisprudence or conduct. The aim of the book is to enable readers to form their own opinions and to take part in what is undoubtedly being strongly debated today: the confrontation between Compliance and rights of the defence. - ► Summary of the book: The rights of the defence are one of the pillars of our Rule of Law. On the face of it, compliance techniques are not concerned with this under the pretext of efficiency. This would be particularly true in a trilogy that unfolds over time: internal investigation, convention judiciaire d'intérêt public – CJIP (French Judicial Public Interest Agreement) and comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité – CRPC (French guilty plea procedure). However, because Compliance Law is also the expression of the Rule of Law, in that its ambition is to detect and prevent systemic risks in order to protect present and future human beings, we must go beyond this opposition and articulate Compliance and rights of the defence. The Monumental Goals of Compliance, which justify its power, for example to obtain information, and the fundamental rights of the defence, which for example impose the presumption of innocence, must be adjusted to each other; by interpreting texts, or even adopting new ones. The book analyses each of these three techniques, in particular the still largely unregulated internal investigation, and sheds light on them in relation to each other, in order to formulate proposals. - 🏗️General construction of the book: The book opens with an overview divided into three sections. The first Title compares the challenges of the internal investigation with the rights of the defence. The second Title compares the issues at stake in the convention judiciaire d'intérêt public – CJIP (French Judicial Public Interest Agreement) and the comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité – CRPC (French guilty plea procedure) with these same rights of the defence. -   TABLE OF CONTENTS   COMPLIANCE ET DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE : VISION D'ENSEMBLE (COMPLIANCE AND RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE : OVERVIEW) Section 1 ♦️ Connaître les pratiques pour redessiner les frontières et accroître les points de contact entre Compliance et droits de la défense dans l’enquête interne, la CJIP et la CRPC. Lignes de force de l'ouvrage Compliance et droits de la défense (Understanding practices to redraw the boundaries and increase the points of contact between Compliance and the rights of the defense in internal investigation, French Judicial Public Interest Agreement and French guilty plea procedure. Main Aspects of the Book Compliance and rights of the defence), by🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche   Section 2 ♦️  Compliance et droits de la défense : toujours pour le respect des droits humains (Compliance and rights of the defence: always for the respect of human rights), by🕴️Matthieu Boissavy Section 3 ♦️ Circuler dans le temps pour mettre en phase Compliance et droits de la défense (Moving through Time to align Compliance and rights of the defence), by🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche   TITRE I.  LES ENJEUX PROCÉDURAUX DE L'ENQUETE INTERNE CONFRONTÉE AUX DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE (TITLE I.  PROCEDURAL CHALLENGES OF THE INTERNAL INVESTIGATION IN RELATION TO THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE)   CHAPITRE I : VISION GÉNÉRALE DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE DANS L'ENQUÊTE INTERNE  (CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE IN INTERNAL INVESTIGATION) Section 1 ♦️ Approche doctrinale de l’enquête interne et de l’enquête pénale privée (Doctrinal approach to internal investigation and private criminal investigation), by 🕴️Benjamin Fiorini Section 2 ♦️ Regard critique : La place des droits de la défense dans l'enquête interne selon le guide AFA/PNF (A critical look: The place of the rights of the defence in the internal investigation according to the AFA/PNF Guide), by 🕴️Margaux Durand-Poincloux, 🕴️David Apelbaum and 🕴️Paola Sardi-Antasan Section 3 ♦️ Les conditions de réussite de l'enquête interne dans les rapports entre le Parquet national financier et l’entreprise mise en cause – l’enquête interne au soutien de la défense de l’entreprise (The conditions for a successful internal investigation in the relationship between the French Financial Public Prosecutor's Office and the accused company – the internal investigation in support of the company's defence), by🕴️Jean-François Bohnert   CHAPITRE II : LES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE À CHAQUE ÉTAPE DE L'ENQUÊTE INTERNE (CHAPTER II: THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE AT EACH STAGE OF THE INTERNAL INVESTIGATION)   Section 1 ♦️ La réception des alertes par l'avocat (Reception of alerts by the lawyer), by🕴️Maria Lancri Section 2 ♦️ Collecte et traitement des informations dans les enquêtes internes à l'ère numérique : processus et enjeux (Collecting and processing information for internal investigations in the digital age: processes and challenges), by🕴️Uriel Goldberg Section 3 ♦️ L’apport de la psychologie pour l'effectivité des droits de la défense dans l'enquête interne pour harcèlement au travail (The contribution of psychology to the effectiveness of the rights of the defence in internal investigation for harassment in the workplace), by🕴️Nathalie Leroy & 🕴️Danièle Zucker Section 4 ♦️ Le respect des droits de la défense lors des auditions des enquêtes internes : un gage d’efficacité (Respecting the rights of the defence during hearings in internal investigations: a guarantee of efficacy), by 🕴️Emmanuel Daoud & 🕴️Ghita Khalid Rouissi Section 5 ♦️ L’enquête interne au cœur des enjeux de conformité et de justice négociée : analyse de la position de l'AFA et du PNF (The internal investigation at the heart of conformity and negotiated justice issues: analysis of the position of the AFA and the PNF), by🕴️Éric Russo Section 6 ♦️ Le rapport d’enquête interne à l’épreuve des droits de la défense (The internal investigation report put to the test of defence rights), by🕴️Samuel Sauphanor   CHAPITRE III : LA SPÉCIFICITÉ DES ENQUÊTES INTERNES DANS LES ENTREPRISES INTERNATIONALES ET LA PLACE DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE (CHAPTER III : SPECIFICITY OF INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS IN INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES AND THE PLACE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE) Section 1 ♦️ La spécificité des enquêtes internes pratiquées par les groupes internationaux (Specificity of internal investigations carried out by international groups), by 🕴️Olivier Catherine Section 2 ♦️ Garantir la valeur probatoire d’un rapport dans le cadre d’une enquête interne opérée dans une entreprise internationale (Guaranteeing the evidential value of a report in an internal investigation carried out in an international company), by 🕴️Monique Figueiredo Section 3 ♦️ La responsabilité de l'entreprise dans la conception et la menée de l'enquête interne (The company's responsibility in designing and conducting an internal investigation), by 🕴️Lydia Meziani Section 4 ♦️ Enquêtes internes, enquêtes pénales et droits de la défense : que nous disent les jurisprudences américaine et anglaise (l’affaire Connolly et l’affaire ENRC) ? (Internal investigations, criminal investigations and rights of the defence: what do the US and UK case law tell us (the Connolly case and the ENRC case)?), by 🕴️Victoire Chatelin   CHAPITRE IV : LE RÔLE SINGULIER DE L'AVOCAT DANS L'ENQUÊTE INTERNE (CHAPTER IV: THE SPECIAL ROLE OF THE LAWYER IN THE INTERNAL INVESTIGATION) Section 1 ♦️ La méthodologie propre à l'avocat enquêteur (The investigating lawyer's own methodology), by 🕴️William Feugère Section 2 ♦️ L'enquête interne façonnée par la déontologie de l'avocat (The internal investigation shaped by the lawyer's deontology), by 🕴️Stéphane De Navacelle, 🕴️Julie Zorrila and 🕴️Laura Ragazzi Section 3 ♦️ Préserver le secret professionnel de l'avocat dans l'enquête interne et son résultat (Preserving the lawyer's professional secrecy in the internal investigation and its outcome), by 🕴️Bénédicte Graulle & 🕴️Yanis Rahim Section 4 ♦️ L’avocat-enquêteur en droit du travail : un janséniste au milieu du Far West (The lawyer-investigator in employment law: a Jansenist in the Wild West), by 🕴️Richard Doudet Section 5 ♦️ La défense des personnes physiques dans les enquêtes internes (Defending individuals in internal investigations), by 🕴️Dorothée Hever     TITRE II. LES ENJEUX PROCÉDURAUX DE LA CJIP ET DE LA CRPC CONFRONTÉES AUX DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE (TITLE II. PROCEDURAL CHALLENGES OF THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE  IN RELATION TO THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE)   CHAPITRE I : VISION GÉNÉRALE DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE DANS LA CJIP ET LA CRPC (CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE IN THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE) Section 1 ♦️ Théorie et pratique de la négociation dans la justice pénale (Theory and practice of negotiation in criminal justice), by 🕴️Sarah-Marie Cabon Section 2 ♦️ La lutte anti-corruption : l’emprunt au modèle américain et à ses récentes évolutions (The fight against corruption: borrowing from the American model and its recent developments), by 🕴️Stephen L. Dreyfuss Section 3 ♦️ Justice pénale négociée : avantages présents, risques à venir (Negotiated criminal justice: curent benefits, future risks), by 🕴️Alexis Bavitot   CHAPITRE II : FORMES ACTIVES DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE, LES DIALOGUES À L'OEUVRE OU À PARFAIRE DANS LA CJIP ET LA CRPC (CHAPTER II: ACTIVE FORMS OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE, DIALOGUES AT WORK OR TO BE PERFECTED IN THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE) Section 1 ♦️ Combinaison des CRPC et des CJIP : le cas particulier des affaires de fraude fiscale (Combination of the French guilty plea procedure and the French Judicial Public Interest Agreement: the special issue of tax fraud cases), by 🕴️Marion David Section 2 ♦️ Pour une justice pénale négociée plus équitable (For a fairer negotiated criminal justice), by🕴️Astrid Mignon Colombet Section 3 ♦️ Les impacts, sur les droits de la défense, des disparités de la justice pénale négociée dans l’Union européenne (The impact on the rights of the defence of the disparities in negotiated criminal justice in the European Union), by 🕴️Emmanuel Moyne Section 4 ♦️ L'évolution des rapports entre avocats et autorités de poursuites depuis l'introduction de la CJIP (Developments in relations between lawyers and prosecuting authorities since the introduction of the French Judicial Public Interest Agreement), by 🕴️Thomas Baudesson   CHAPITRE III : LE RÔLE SINGULIER DE L'AVOCAT DANS LA CJIP ET LA CRPC  (CHAPTER III: THE SINGULAR ROLE OF THE LAWYER IN THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE) Section 1 ♦️ Quand se justifie et quand s'arrête la collaboration ? À propos de la CJIP (When is collaboration justified and when does it end? About the French Judicial Public Interest Agreement), by 🕴️Philippe Goossens Section 2 ♦️ Le dialogue de l’avocat et de son client, chef d’entreprise, face à la proposition d’une CRPC et d’une CJIP (The dialogue between the lawyer and his client, a company director, faced with the proposal of a French guilty plea procedure or a French Judicial Public Interest Agreement), by 🕴️François Saint-Pierre Section 3 ♦️ Le dilemme de l'avocat pénaliste face à la CRPC (The criminal lawyer's dilemma when faced with the French guilty plea procedure), by 🕴️Jean Boudot Section 4 ♦️ Défendre les intérêts de la personne physique confrontée à la justice négociée : préserver l’effectivité des droits de la défense et le respect de la présomption d’innocence (Defending the interests of individuals faced with negotiated justice: preserving the effectiveness of the rights of the defence and respect for the presumption of innocence), by 🕴️Capucine Lanta de Bérard & 🕴️Pauline Dufourq Section 5 ♦️ Défendre les intérêts des victimes dans la justice pénale économique négociée (Defending victims' interests in negotiated economic criminal justice), by 🕴️Jérôme Karsenti - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche & M. Boissavy (eds.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC (Compliance and rights of the defence. Internal investigation – French Judicial Public Interest Agreement – French guilty plea procedure), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, “Régulations & Compliance” Serie, 2024, 362 p. - ► General presentation of the book:  We do not have an overall view of the relationship between Compliance and the rights of the defence in the continuum of internal investigations and DPA, or in the French legal system the convention judiciaire d’intérêt public (CJIP) and the comparution immédiate avec reconnaissance de culpabilité (CRPC), in particular because the texts, whether hard law or soft law, decisions and academic analyses segment them, making it difficult to build a pertinent appreciation of each one. This is made all the more difficult by the fact that we know little about how each of them is applied in practice, both within each of them and in relation to each other.  As a result, it is difficult to express overall satisfaction, or total rejection, or to suggest some specific reforms and to precise on what points, to identify the appropriate source of these improvements, legislation, case law, professions, or spontaneous ways of doing. The first ambition of this book is therefore to restore an overall vision, because this is the vision of practice. If shortcomings are found to exist, then they can be more easily denounced. However, some of the situations described may be described as flawed, or even dramatic, by some, while others may consider that they should be approved as they stand. This applies, for example, to the question of whether or not the investigation report should be secret from the prosecuting authority, which may propose a DPA (or in the French legal system a CJIP), whether or not this CJIP should be extended to individuals, whether or not a lawyer should be present from the internal investigation stage onwards, whether or not the lawyer should support the interests of the company he/she is investigating and continue to do so before the regulator or the prosecutor, whether or not the investigation is delegated from the public authorities to the company, whether or not the lawyer-investigator and then the lawyer-defendant are both lawyers, whether or not the victims are represented in the the CIPC process, etc. Depending on what one thinks the relation between Compliance and due process should be in principle and in practice, one expresses a more or less approving or severe judgement on the state of the texts, the soft law nature of most of them making the exercise complicated, and then if there is a gap between them and what one thinks should be the right standard, one asserts that in practice things happen differently from what the texts say, or one considers that the texts should be changed. From point to point, a veritable kaleidoscope emerges in this book. Indeed, the result is a series of contributions that sometimes clash with one another, with a sort of contradictionary principle creeping into the very structure of this book, thus establishing the readesr as a sort of judges themselves , that character who is so absent. He/she will be able to do so, since the book lists texts, describes practices and gives an illustration of everything that can be thought of, in visions that are sometimes analytical and sometimes global, with proposals of reforms of texts, jurisprudence or conduct. The aim of the book is to enable readers to form their own opinions and to take part in what is undoubtedly being strongly debated today: the confrontation between Compliance and rights of the defence. - 🧮this book follows a conference organised by the Conseil national des barreaux – CNB (French National Council of Lawyers), which took place on 20 and 21 April 2023: Avocats et droits de la défense dans les enquêtes internes et la justice négociée. - This volume is the continuation of the books dedicated to Compliance in this collection. ► Read the presentations of the other books in the series: the following books: 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕L’Obligation de Compliance, 2025 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Compliance et Contrat, forthcoming 🕴️L. Laref (ed.), 📕Compliance et vigilance bancaire, forthcoming 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📕Le système juridique de l’adressage de l’Internet. Une structure multi-acteurs, gage de durabilité (The Legal System of Internet Addressing. A Multi-Stakeholder Structure, the Pledge of its Sustainability), forthcoming 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Le système probatoire de la Compliance, forthcoming   the previous books: 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, 2023 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, 2022 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Les outils de la Compliance, 2021 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Pour une Europe de la Compliance, 2019 🕴️N. Borga, J.-Cl. Marin and J.-Ch. Roda (eds.), 📕Compliance : l’entreprise, le régulateur et le juge, 2018 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Régulation, Supervision, Compliance, 2017 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Internet, espace d’interrégulation, 2016 📚Read the presentations of the other titles of the collection. - ► Summary of the book: The rights of the defence are one of the pillars of our Rule of Law. On the face of it, compliance techniques are not concerned with this under the pretext of efficiency. This would be particularly true in a trilogy that unfolds over time: internal investigation, convention judiciaire d’intérêt public – CJIP (French Judicial Public Interest Agreement) and comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité – CRPC (French guilty plea procedure). However, because Compliance Law is also the expression of the Rule of Law, in that its ambition is to detect and prevent systemic risks in order to protect present and future human beings, we must go beyond this opposition and articulate Compliance and rights of the defence. The Monumental Goals of Compliance, which justify its power, for example to obtain information, and the fundamental rights of the defence, which for example impose the presumption of innocence, must be adjusted to each other; by interpreting texts, or even adopting new ones. The book analyses each of these three techniques, in particular the still largely unregulated internal investigation, and sheds light on them in relation to each other, in order to formulate proposals. - 🏗️General construction of the book: The book opens with an overview divided into three sections. The first Title compares the challenges of the internal investigation with the rights of the defence. The second Title compares the issues at stake in the convention judiciaire d’intérêt public – CJIP (French Judicial Public Interest Agreement) and the comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité – CRPC (French guilty plea procedure) with these same rights of the defence. -   TABLE OF CONTENTS   COMPLIANCE ET DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE : VISION D’ENSEMBLE (COMPLIANCE AND RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE : OVERVIEW) Section 1 ♦️ Connaître les pratiques pour redessiner les frontières et accroître les points de contact entre Compliance et droits de la défense dans l’enquête interne, la CJIP et la CRPC. Lignes de force de l’ouvrage Compliance et droits de la défense (Understanding practices to redraw the boundaries and increase the points of contact between Compliance and the rights of the defense in internal investigation, French Judicial Public Interest Agreement and French guilty plea procedure. Main Aspects of the Book Compliance and rights of the defence), by🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche   Section 2 ♦️  Compliance et droits de la défense : toujours pour le respect des droits humains (Compliance and rights of the defence: always for the respect of human rights), by🕴️Matthieu Boissavy Section 3 ♦️ Circuler dans le temps pour mettre en phase Compliance et droits de la défense (Moving through Time to align Compliance and rights of the defence), by🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche   TITRE I.  LES ENJEUX PROCÉDURAUX DE L’ENQUETE INTERNE CONFRONTÉE AUX DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE (TITLE I.  PROCEDURAL CHALLENGES OF THE INTERNAL INVESTIGATION IN RELATION TO THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE)   CHAPITRE I : VISION GÉNÉRALE DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE DANS L’ENQUÊTE INTERNE  (CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE IN INTERNAL INVESTIGATION) Section 1 ♦️ Approche doctrinale de l’enquête interne et de l’enquête pénale privée (Doctrinal approach to internal investigation and private criminal investigation), by 🕴️Benjamin Fiorini Section 2 ♦️ Regard critique : La place des droits de la défense dans l’enquête interne selon le guide AFA/PNF (A critical look: The place of the rights of the defence in the internal investigation according to the AFA/PNF Guide), by 🕴️Margaux Durand-Poincloux, 🕴️David Apelbaum and 🕴️Paola Sardi-Antasan Section 3 ♦️ Les conditions de réussite de l’enquête interne dans les rapports entre le Parquet national financier et l’entreprise mise en cause – l’enquête interne au soutien de la défense de l’entreprise (The conditions for a successful internal investigation in the relationship between the French Financial Public Prosecutor’s Office and the accused company – the internal investigation in support of the company’s defence), by🕴️Jean-François Bohnert   CHAPITRE II : LES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE À CHAQUE ÉTAPE DE L’ENQUÊTE INTERNE (CHAPTER II: THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE AT EACH STAGE OF THE INTERNAL INVESTIGATION)   Section 1 ♦️ La réception des alertes par l’avocat (Reception of alerts by the lawyer), by🕴️Maria Lancri Section 2 ♦️ Collecte et traitement des informations dans les enquêtes internes à l’ère numérique : processus et enjeux (Collecting and processing information for internal investigations in the digital age: processes and challenges), by🕴️Uriel Goldberg Section 3 ♦️ L’apport de la psychologie pour l’effectivité des droits de la défense dans l’enquête interne pour harcèlement au travail (The contribution of psychology to the effectiveness of the rights of the defence in internal investigation for harassment in the workplace), by🕴️Nathalie Leroy & 🕴️Danièle Zucker Section 4 ♦️ Le respect des droits de la défense lors des auditions des enquêtes internes : un gage d’efficacité (Respecting the rights of the defence during hearings in internal investigations: a guarantee of efficacy), by 🕴️Emmanuel Daoud & 🕴️Ghita Khalid Rouissi Section 5 ♦️ L’enquête interne au cœur des enjeux de conformité et de justice négociée : analyse de la position de l’AFA et du PNF (The internal investigation at the heart of conformity and negotiated justice issues: analysis of the position of the AFA and the PNF), by🕴️Éric Russo Section 6 ♦️ Le rapport d’enquête interne à l’épreuve des droits de la défense (The internal investigation report put to the test of defence rights), by🕴️Samuel Sauphanor   CHAPITRE III : LA SPÉCIFICITÉ DES ENQUÊTES INTERNES DANS LES ENTREPRISES INTERNATIONALES ET LA PLACE DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE (CHAPTER III : SPECIFICITY OF INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS IN INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES AND THE PLACE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE) Section 1 ♦️ La spécificité des enquêtes internes pratiquées par les groupes internationaux (Specificity of internal investigations carried out by international groups), by 🕴️Olivier Catherine Section 2 ♦️ Garantir la valeur probatoire d’un rapport dans le cadre d’une enquête interne opérée dans une entreprise internationale (Guaranteeing the evidential value of a report in an internal investigation carried out in an international company), by 🕴️Monique Figueiredo Section 3 ♦️ La responsabilité de l’entreprise dans la conception et la menée de l’enquête interne (The company’s responsibility in designing and conducting an internal investigation), by 🕴️Lydia Meziani Section 4 ♦️ Enquêtes internes, enquêtes pénales et droits de la défense : que nous disent les jurisprudences américaine et anglaise (l’affaire Connolly et l’affaire ENRC) ? (Internal investigations, criminal investigations and rights of the defence: what do the US and UK case law tell us (the Connolly case and the ENRC case)?), by 🕴️Victoire Chatelin   CHAPITRE IV : LE RÔLE SINGULIER DE L’AVOCAT DANS L’ENQUÊTE INTERNE (CHAPTER IV: THE SPECIAL ROLE OF THE LAWYER IN THE INTERNAL INVESTIGATION) Section 1 ♦️ La méthodologie propre à l’avocat enquêteur (The investigating lawyer’s own methodology), by 🕴️William Feugère Section 2 ♦️ L’enquête interne façonnée par la déontologie de l’avocat (The internal investigation shaped by the lawyer’s deontology), by 🕴️Stéphane De Navacelle, 🕴️Julie Zorrila and 🕴️Laura Ragazzi Section 3 ♦️ Préserver le secret professionnel de l’avocat dans l’enquête interne et son résultat (Preserving the lawyer’s professional secrecy in the internal investigation and its outcome), by 🕴️Bénédicte Graulle & 🕴️Yanis Rahim Section 4 ♦️ L’avocat-enquêteur en droit du travail : un janséniste au milieu du Far West (The lawyer-investigator in employment law: a Jansenist in the Wild West), by 🕴️Richard Doudet Section 5 ♦️ La défense des personnes physiques dans les enquêtes internes (Defending individuals in internal investigations), by 🕴️Dorothée Hever     TITRE II. LES ENJEUX PROCÉDURAUX DE LA CJIP ET DE LA CRPC CONFRONTÉES AUX DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE (TITLE II. PROCEDURAL CHALLENGES OF THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE  IN RELATION TO THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE)   CHAPITRE I : VISION GÉNÉRALE DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE DANS LA CJIP ET LA CRPC (CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE IN THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE) Section 1 ♦️ Théorie et pratique de la négociation dans la justice pénale (Theory and practice of negotiation in criminal justice), by 🕴️Sarah-Marie Cabon Section 2 ♦️ La lutte anti-corruption : l’emprunt au modèle américain et à ses récentes évolutions (The fight against corruption: borrowing from the American model and its recent developments), by 🕴️Stephen L. Dreyfuss Section 3 ♦️ Justice pénale négociée : avantages présents, risques à venir (Negotiated criminal justice: curent benefits, future risks), by 🕴️Alexis Bavitot   CHAPITRE II : FORMES ACTIVES DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE, LES DIALOGUES À L’OEUVRE OU À PARFAIRE DANS LA CJIP ET LA CRPC (CHAPTER II: ACTIVE FORMS OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE, DIALOGUES AT WORK OR TO BE PERFECTED IN THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE) Section 1 ♦️ Combinaison des CRPC et des CJIP : le cas particulier des affaires de fraude fiscale (Combination of the French guilty plea procedure and the French Judicial Public Interest Agreement: the special issue of tax fraud cases), by 🕴️Marion David Section 2 ♦️ Pour une justice pénale négociée plus équitable (For a fairer negotiated criminal justice), by🕴️Astrid Mignon Colombet Section 3 ♦️ Les impacts, sur les droits de la défense, des disparités de la justice pénale négociée dans l’Union européenne (The impact on the rights of the defence of the disparities in negotiated criminal justice in the European Union), by 🕴️Emmanuel Moyne Section 4 ♦️ L’évolution des rapports entre avocats et autorités de poursuites depuis l’introduction de la CJIP (Developments in relations between lawyers and prosecuting authorities since the introduction of the French Judicial Public Interest Agreement), by 🕴️Thomas Baudesson   CHAPITRE III : LE RÔLE SINGULIER DE L’AVOCAT DANS LA CJIP ET LA CRPC  (CHAPTER III: THE SINGULAR ROLE OF THE LAWYER IN THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE) Section 1 ♦️ Quand se justifie et quand s’arrête la collaboration ? À propos de la CJIP (When is collaboration justified and when does it end? About the French Judicial Public Interest Agreement), by 🕴️Philippe Goossens Section 2 ♦️ Le dialogue de l’avocat et de son client, chef d’entreprise, face à la proposition d’une CRPC et d’une CJIP (The dialogue between the lawyer and his client, a company director, faced with the proposal of a French guilty plea procedure or a French Judicial Public Interest Agreement), by 🕴️François Saint-Pierre Section 3 ♦️ Le dilemme de l’avocat pénaliste face à la CRPC (The criminal lawyer’s dilemma when faced with the French guilty plea procedure), by 🕴️Jean Boudot Section 4 ♦️ Défendre les intérêts de la personne physique confrontée à la justice négociée : préserver l’effectivité des droits de la défense et le respect de la présomption d’innocence (Defending the interests of individuals faced with negotiated justice: preserving the effectiveness of the rights of the defence and respect for the presumption of innocence), by 🕴️Capucine Lanta de Bérard & 🕴️Pauline Dufourq Section 5 ♦️ Défendre les intérêts des victimes dans la justice pénale économique négociée (Defending victims’ interests in negotiated economic criminal justice), by 🕴️Jérôme Karsenti - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche "Circuler dans le temps pour mettre en phase Compliance et droits de la défense ("Moving through Time to align Compliance with the rights of the defence")", in M.-A. Frison-Roche et M. Boissavy (dir.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance",  2024, pp. 33-58. - 📝read the article (in French) - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper on which this article is based, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks - 📕read the general presentation of the book, Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, in which this article is published (in French) - 📝read also the presentation of the other article published par Marie-Anne Frison-Roche in this book : "Connaitre les pratiques pour redessiner les frontières et accroître les points de contact entre Compliance et droits de la défense dans l’enquête interne, la CJIP et la CRPC" (Understanding practices to redraw the boundaries and increase the points of contact between Compliance and the rights of the defense in Internal Investigation, Judicial Public Interest Agreement and French guilty plea procedure) - ► English Summary of this article: the subject of Compliance & rights of the defence is difficult to pin down because it often gives rise to totally opposing presentations, which express the initial confrontation between Compliance and rights of the defence, which seems irreducible. This initial confrontation must be acknowledged, and this is even more necessary to prevent it from becoming definitive(I) But in a society governed by the Rule of Law, the rights of the defence are central, and the hierarchy of norms dictates that they remain the privilege of all those who risk being punished in the future. Admittedly, if we look at the course of events in a linear way, the Compliance mechanisms come in Ex Ante, whereas the rights of the defence would only be activated when the repressive procedures would later come to bear on the moral or natural person. The question would therefore not even arise, or not in a central way. But this reasoning creates a false compatibility between Compliance and the rights of the defence (II. Indeed, it is the perspective of punishment in the future that forms the basis for the attribution of rights of the defence in the present. This consideration of the future not only allows but obliges the Law to "move in time", to always think in advance about what might happen tomorrow: this is how we must think about the Compliance methods of Internal Investigation, the DPA (or in the French legal system the Convention judiciaire d'intérêt public and the French Guilty plea procedure (CRPC) (III). As soon as these Compliance Tools are being used in practice, at the time they are being used, we must already think about how their results will be used, results which they have often been used for, because the Internal Investigation is a formidable piece of Evidence for obtaining a conviction and/or a DPA, etc. : therefore, the rights of the defence must shift over time, from the future to the present of the Information collect. Two ambiguities that affect Compliance Law itself, ambiguities which the rights of the defence help to clarify, now appear more clearly.  The first concerns the place occupied by the consent of the person who could have been protected by the rights of defence but //who exercises his/her will to renounce them (IV). Consent, in relation to the will of which it is the expression, is also linked with the future and allows Compliance once again to take precedence over the prerogatives of the individual who chooses not to benefit from it. The omnipresence of 'consent' in Compliance is enlightening here… The second ambiguity concerns the place of secrecy (V). Secrecy seems to be the prerogative of the rights of the defence. But it can also be an effective Compliance Tool when Confidentiality enables the company to detect and prevent breaches. It may even constitute the very Monumental Goal of Compliance Law. This happens when the Goal of Compliance Law, in which legal normativity is placed, becomes the protection of the individual, as is the case for personal information. That guides the European Judge, in line with the humanism that underpins European Compliance Law, in finding the right balance, this protection and effectiveness, depending on whether the information must be given or must be not. - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

► Full Reference: D. Latour, "Internal investigations within companies", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation,  Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2024, pp. 184-201 - 📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published - ► Summary of the article ():  - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses -

► Full Reference: F. Ancel &  M.-A. Frison-Roche, Droit de la compliance (Compliance Law), École nationale de la magistrature – ENM (French National School for the Judiciary), in collaboration with the École de Formation professionnelle des Barreaux du ressort de la cour d'appel de Paris – EFB (Paris Bar School), Paris, February 1 and 2, 2024 This teaching is given in French. - 🌐consult on LinkedIn a general présentation of this event, which links to a presentation and a report of each speech - ► Presentation of the Teaching: The aim of this two-day conference is to enable judges and lawyers to grasp the issues, objectives and methods that define Compliance Law as it is practised in companies. The speakers will illustrate the growing trend towards litigation, which is difficult to reconcile with the supranational dimension, or even indifference to territories, for example when disputes concern systemic climate or digital issues: the result is a renewal of the role of the judge and the role of lawyers. This must be set against the renewal of the role and operation of companies themselves. This is analysed from the perspective of Civil Law, in particular Contract Law and Liability Law. Company Law and Criminal Law are also addressed, as well as the way in which the legal system now integrates governance, regulation, climate and digital issues and the smooth operation of financial markets through Compliance techniques. - ► Organisation of the Teaching: This conference is divided into two parts. The first day is designed as a presentation of the major themes through which Compliance Law crosses the branches of traditional Law. The speakers will be professors of Law who will successively summarise the branches of Law and put into perspective the way in which Compliance imperatives give rise to new situations, new difficulties and new solutions. This enables the second day to focus on practical and topical issues and to debate controversial questions between people of different sensibilities. The participants tend to be judges, members of regulatory authorities, lawyers, members of associations and so on. - ► Enrolment procedure: The course is open to all judicial and consular magistrates, as well as lawyers. Registrations can be made directly with the ENM or with the EFB. - ► Speakers :   🎤François Ancel, Judge at the Première Chambre civile de la Cour de cassation (First Civil Chamber of the French Court of cassation)  🎤Thomas Baudesson, Attorney at the Paris Bar, Partner at Clifford Chance 🎤Guillaume Beaussonie, Full Professor at Toulouse 1 Capitole University 🎤Jacques Boulard, Premier Président de la Cour d’appel de Paris (First President of the Paris Court of Appeal) 🎤Marie Caffin-Moi, Full Professor at Paris Panthéon-Assas University 🎤Malik Chapuis, Judge at the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris (Paris First Instance Civil Court) 🎤Lucie Chatelain, Advocacy and Litigation Manager – Civil Liability of Parent Companies, Sherpa 🎤Jean-Benoît Devauges, Directeur Juridique, Ethique et Gouvernance des entreprises (Legal, Ethics and enterprises governance Director), MEDEF 🎤Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory and Compliance Law, Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) 🎤Arnaud Gossement, Attorney at the Paris Bar, Partner at Gossement Avocats 🎤Thibault Goujon-Bethan, Full Professor at Jean Moulin Lyon 3 University 🎤Christophe Ingrain, Attorney at the Paris Bar, Partner at Darrois Villey Maillot Brochier 🎤Isabelle Jegouzo, Director of the Agence française anticorruption – AFA (French Anti-Corruption Agency)  🎤Anne-Valérie Le Fur, Full Professor at Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines University 🎤Charlotte Michon, Attorney at the Paris Bar, partner at Charlotte Michon Avocat 🎤Jean-Baptiste Racine, Full Professor at Paris Panthéon-Assas University 🎤 Jean-Christophe Roda, Full Professor at Jean-Moulin Lyon 3 University 🎤Jérôme Simon, 1er Vice-Procureur Financier (First Financial Vice-Prosecutor) - 🧮read below the programme put together and organised by François Ancel and Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, as well as the reports of each presentation⤵️ - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law