1. T HURSDAY B REAKOUT SESSION 2 R ELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A GENCIES AND THE B AR 2012 ICN Cartel Workshop Kamil Nejezchleb & Huy Do

2. C ONTENT Spectrum of Relationship between CA and Bar Types of cooperation General cooperation Cooperation within the particular case What type of relationship is desirable? Topics for discussion

3. R ELATIONSHIP S PECTRUM Relationship is complex and spans across spectrum Range from adversarial to highly co-operative, depending on circumstances Nevertheless, there is common interest in efficient, clear, just proceedings Clear procedural rules Guarantees (business secrets, leniency, settlements) Legal privilege Calculation of fines

4. T YPES OF C O - OPERATION General Particular - case related

5. G ENERAL C O - OPERATION Classic Conferences Enabling to comment new drafts Guidelines Amendments Lectures More sophisticated Regular meetings Ad hoc special task forces Interchange or Secondments Other special types of cooperation

6. G ENERAL C O - OPERATION Focused on general practical problems Communication Understanding Legal issues Development Strictly limited to general discussions (no “live” cases)

7. G ENERAL C O - OPERATION CAs ( Czech ) Experience Annual meeting “external session” Very informal Topics are covered from both perspectives Not only members of the Bar but also judges In future we would like to invite also representatives from Universities Planned regular “in-house” meetings More formal More focused Members of “in-house committee of appeal” (an advisory body for the Chairman of the Czech CA) Must not be interested in the particular case Only advisory role – not binding for the Chairman

8. G ENERAL C O - OPERATION Bar Experience (Canada) Significant involvement by Competition Bureau in Competition Bar Committees and Conferences Bar (and public) often consulted on enforcement guidelines “Roundtables” involving Competition Bureau and Bar Bar very active within ICN

9. C O - OPERATION W ITHIN A P ARTICULAR C ASE Degree of co-operation is highly dependent on particular facts of any given case Factors Contested proceedings/Leniency/Settlement Possible criminal sanctions Strength of existing evidence or defences Stage of proceedings

10. W HAT T YPE OF R ELATIONSHIP D O CA S W ANT WITH THE B AR Czech Perspective Meaningful (discussions regarding totally opposite opinions where no common understanding is possible are waste of time) Professional (discussions regarding “serious issues”) Trustworthy (accuracy and validity of provided information) Effective (get rid of non-effective negotiations)

11. W HAT T YPE OF R ELATIONSHIP D OES THE B AR W ANT WITH CA S Canadian Perspective Professional relationship with integrity On both sides, credibility is key Appreciation and understanding of each side’s position on issues Focus on real meaningful issues Open lines of communication Timeliness Disagree without being disagreeable

12. T OPICS FOR D ISCUSSION 1) General importance of the cooperation between the Bar and CAs. 2) Extent of cooperation between the Bar and CAs? 3) What are (could be) the most important benefits of such cooperation between the Bar and CAs? 4) What are the most serious potential threats of cooperation between the Bar and CAs?

13. T OPICS FOR DISCUSSION 6) What difficulties have arisen in practice when it comes to the CA-Bar relationship? 7) Experience with Enforcement Guidelines, CA-Bar Roundtables, Interchange or Secondments, Task Forces regarding Legislative Changes. 8) Professional and ethical rules - whether and how such rules apply to the CA-Bar relationship? 9) Practical guidance and tips how to proceed with establishment or improvement of relationships between the bar and CAs?