Conflict Register

A conflict may arise where a person involved in an investigation, editorial decision or legal review has an interest or relationship that could reasonably call their independence into question. Relevant circumstances may include:

The question is not only whether actual bias exists, but whether the circumstances create a material risk that independent judgment could reasonably be questioned.

Journalists, researchers, investigators, editors, legal reviewers and other personnel involved in substantive work should disclose a known material conflict as soon as it becomes apparent.

A person should not decide privately that their own conflict is insignificant where it could reasonably affect — or appear to affect — their work.

Disclosure allows the organisation to determine what safeguards, if any, are appropriate.

A disclosed conflict should be assessed according to factors including:

• the nature of the relationship;
• its financial or personal significance;
• how recently it existed;
• the individual’s role in the investigation;
• whether the person can influence publication;
• the seriousness of the matter being reported; and
• whether a reasonable reader would consider the relationship material.

The appropriate response should be proportionate to the risk presented.

A person may be recused from all or part of an investigation where a material conflict creates an unacceptable risk to independent judgment. Recusal may include exclusion from:

Where appropriate, the matter should be reassigned to personnel who are not affected by the conflict.

Where complete recusal is unnecessary or impracticable, LegalEvidence may require an additional independent review.

For example, work prepared by a researcher with a disclosed historical connection to a subject may be independently checked by another researcher, editor or legal reviewer with no comparable relationship.

Personnel involved in substantive editorial decisions should disclose material financial interests in a subject or directly connected entity where those interests could reasonably affect independent judgment.

This may include significant investments, creditor relationships, contractual interests or other financial exposure.

Where the interest is material, recusal or another appropriate safeguard should ordinarily be considered.

This may include circumstances where a LegalEvidence lawyer, investigator, consultant or other professional has previously advised, represented, worked for or provided services to the subject or a materially adverse party.

Professional duties such as legal privilege and confidentiality must be respected independently of this policy.

LegalEvidence should not use confidential or privileged information obtained through a prior professional relationship as investigative material merely because a person later becomes the subject of reporting.

A person or organisation may simultaneously be a Research Member and a subject of, source for or interested party in a LegalEvidence matter.

Membership does not disqualify a subject from investigation. It also does not provide preferential editorial treatment.

Where a membership relationship creates a material conflict concerning an investigation, the relationship should be disclosed internally and appropriately managed.

Personnel providing paid member services should not be permitted to promise or determine a favourable editorial outcome in return for membership.

A donor, investor, sponsor, commercial partner or other financial contributor must not obtain editorial control over investigations by virtue of financial support.

Where LegalEvidence has a material financial relationship with a person or organisation that becomes the subject of reporting, that relationship should be assessed as a potential conflict. Where necessary, safeguards may include:

No contributor should be permitted to condition financial support on the suppression or favourable treatment of a particular record.

Sources may themselves have conflicts. A source may be a:

Such relationships should be considered when evaluating reliability. A source’s hostility toward a subject does not automatically make the evidence false. Conversely, documentary evidence should not be accepted uncritically merely because it supports an allegation.

Where appropriate, independently corroborating the source’s information becomes particularly important.

LegalEvidence personnel should not solicit or accept money, gifts, employment opportunities, services, hospitality or other material benefits from a subject where acceptance could reasonably influence — or appear to influence — the handling of a record.

Legitimate administrative payments for clearly defined services, such as an approved Research Membership, must remain separate from editorial decisions.

A close personal, family or significant professional relationship with a subject, complainant or material source may require disclosure. The appropriate response depends on the circumstances.

Where the relationship creates a substantial risk that independent judgment could reasonably be questioned, recusal should ordinarily be considered.

Where a journalist, investigator, editor or other decision-maker has a significant prior dispute with a subject, that relationship should be disclosed.

LegalEvidence should not knowingly use its publishing functions to advance an employee’s personal, commercial or legal dispute.

Likewise, information supplied by a complainant involved in a private dispute should be independently evaluated rather than adopted as LegalEvidence’s own conclusion.

A person who has a material personal or financial interest in preserving an existing publication should not be the sole decision-maker on a substantial correction challenge concerning that publication.

Where appropriate, correction requests should receive review from personnel capable of assessing the matter independently.

The objective is accuracy, not defence of previous work.

Legal professionals participating in pre-publication or post-publication review must consider applicable professional duties, including conflicts arising from current or former representation where relevant.

Nothing in LegalEvidence’s internal procedures overrides professional conduct obligations applicable to an individual lawyer.

Where a lawyer cannot appropriately participate, the matter should be reassigned.

LegalEvidence may maintain a public register of material organisational conflicts where disclosure is appropriate and lawful. A public entry may identify:

For example:

The register should not disclose privileged, confidential or unnecessarily personal information. See the register.

LegalEvidence may withhold or limit information where disclosure would:

• breach legal privilege;
• violate confidentiality;
• expose protected personal information;
• identify a confidential source;
• prejudice an investigation;
• create an unjustified safety risk;
• violate professional obligations; or
• otherwise be unlawful.

Where possible, a conflict may be described at a higher level without disclosing protected information.

These labels describe the handling of the conflict. They do not constitute findings concerning any subject.

A person who believes an undisclosed material conflict may affect LegalEvidence reporting may submit the matter for review. A report should identify:

• the relevant LegalEvidence record;
• the person or relationship believed to create the conflict;
• the basis for that belief; and
• any supporting evidence reasonably available.

LegalEvidence may request additional information before determining whether a conflict exists or requires further action.

The existence of a conflict does not automatically require publication to be removed. The correct response is to determine:

• whether the evidence remains reliable;
• whether the editorial process was materially affected;
• whether independent review is necessary; and
• whether readers require disclosure to understand the circumstances.

If the underlying reporting remains independently supportable, a conflict may require disclosure or procedural safeguards rather than removal.

If the conflict materially compromised the reliability of the work, further correction or editorial action may be necessary.