Doping control out of control
Arbitration waxing arbitraryQ10：WADA律师利益冲突不存在？
在代表世界反兴奋剂机构(“WADA”)向国际体育仲裁法庭(“CAS”)提起上诉前两周，金牌大律师Richard Young(“洋大状”)还是国际泳联(“FINA”)法律委员会的成员。运动员认为洋大状代理WADA参与上诉案存在利益冲突，请求CAS撤换WADA的律师；但仲裁庭拒绝了这个请求。《36问》系列的第十问就掰扯这个话题：先讲一讲美国律师行为规范中关于客户利益冲突的规定；接着，晒一晒仲裁庭认定不存在利益冲突的理由；然后，聊一聊洋大状不尽不实的抗辩如何搬石头砸自己的脚。
洋大状是美国科罗拉多州的执业律师，不妨先了解一下美国律师的行为规范。首先，全美律师协会(ABA)编修了《律师职业行为规则范本》，供各州的律师协会在此基础上增改制定自己的具体规则；洋大状所属的科罗拉多州适用的是《科罗拉多州律师职业行为规则》(“CORPC”)。[1]
其次，在奉行普通法的美国，除了成文的规则外，法庭的判例也是各州规范律师行为的标准；同时，各州的最高法院也是本州律师的管理机构。[2]
最后，美国法律研究院(ALI)在研究判例法基础上编纂的《法律注述》系列是对美国各部门法的权威解释；其中，关于律师行为规范的内容收著于《管辖律师的法律之注述》(“Restatement”)。[3]
客户对律师的信任建立于律师对客户的忠诚，两者是律师客户关系的核心基础；因此，避免与客户的利益发生冲突是律师职业操守的重要原则。CORPC明文确定了以下两类利益冲突规则。然而，利欲熏心的律师开发了一条陈仓小道，以绕开利益冲突规则：先“炒掉”现客户，将现客户利益冲突套路成前客户利益冲突；然后辩称所涉事务之间并无实质关联，进而接手原本禁止代理的案子。道高一尺魔高一丈，这套“曲线救案”的骚操作很快就被识破，法庭以判例的形式堵住了成文法的漏洞，这就是著名的“烫手土豆法则”。上世纪80年代，法官Ann Aldrich在判决书中写道：律所不可以像扔掉烫手土豆那样抛弃客户，尤其当目的是取悦更为有利可图的客户；这句话以后被众多案例引用，进而确立了“烫手土豆法则”：律师不得为了承办新业务，而终止与现客户的代理关系。[6]Restatement将这条判例法规则总结为：如果有人寻求律师承办与现客户对立的案子，律师不得通过终止与现客户的代理关系，将现客户利益冲突转化为前客户利益冲突。[7]科罗拉多州明确接受烫手土豆法则。该州的律师职业操守委员会出具的《操守意见书(第135号)》引用了本州2009年的判例以重申：律师不得为了解决利益冲突问题，而像扔烫手土豆那样炒掉现客户。[8]自2013年起洋大状出任FINA法律委员会成员。[9]
2019年初，WADA拟聘请洋大状，对FINA认定运动员没有违规的裁定提出上诉；2019年1月31日，洋大状联系FINA，请求豁免因此造成的利益冲突，遭拒绝。[10]
2019年2月1日，洋大状辞去其在FINA法律委员会的工作。[11]
2019年2月14日，洋大状代表WADA向CAS提起上诉。[12]
一目了然，洋大状终止向FINA提供法律服务，完全是为了将FINA从现客户降格为前客户，以便淡化利益冲突，好接下WADA的上诉。这属于典型的烫手土豆操作；而仲裁庭却用了几个无厘头的理由，试图搪塞过去。[13]
仲裁庭在仲裁书中扔下一句：尽管洋大状是FINA法律委员会成员，但他与FINA之间未必存在律师客户关系；言下之意，既然没有律师客户代理关系，就无所谓什么利益冲突了。[14]
看看科罗拉多州最高法院是怎么诠释“律师客户代理关系”的。[15]律师客户代理关系的很容易就形成。科罗拉多州最高法院认定，“当客户就其行为的法律后果向律师寻求并得到意见之时，律师客户代理关系随即建立”。如果客户，在合理的基础上，认为你是他的律师，那么你就成为他的律师；因此，你们之间的代理关系以及你的行为举止将受到律师职业行为规范的约束。
FINA将洋大状请到法律委员会，就是向其征求法律意见；五年多来，FINA规章制度屡次修订，均参考了洋大状的法律意见。在此基础上，FINA视洋大状为律师，合情合理。所以，无论洋大状在FINA的工作是偶发还是常规，属义务还是有偿，既然FINA认为两者之间存在律师客户代理关系，洋大状就难以回避随之而来的利益冲突问题。
仲裁庭又强调，洋大状早在为FINA工作之前，就一直在给WADA提供服务；赖以证明WADA不是洋大状的新客户，而跟FINA一样是现客户。[16]
然而，即便WASA是洋大状的现客户，也解决不了他所面临的利益冲突难题。首先，烫手土豆法则是禁止律师将现客户“套路”成前客户，以便接手针对该客户的新案子，并不区分发起新案子的是新客户还是现客户。
因此，无论WADA是新客户还是现客户，洋大状通过从FINA辞职而将其套路成前客户的行为，终究逃不脱烫手土豆法则的制裁。
其次，对于双方当事人同为律师现客户的情况，美国法庭的做法是禁止律师代理起诉的客户，但允许律师代理被诉的客户；理由是，通过发起诉讼而引发利益冲突的客户，理应失去挑选律师的优先权。[17]
所以，即便WADA也是洋大状的现客户，但它提起了上诉，便因此失去了选择洋大状作为代理律师的权利。
仲裁庭颇为倚重的另一条理由是：洋大状没有获取本案的保密信息，因此不会对FINA构成实质性的利益冲突。问题在于，仅凭FINA法律委员会没有参与孙杨案件，以及FINA没有提供过孙杨案件信息，就能确认洋大状没有获取客户保密信息吗？
美国的律师行为规范对于保护客户信息要求极严。比如，CORPC要求律师对客户信息予以严格保密，并禁止律师使用任何保密信息给客户造成不利影响；此外，保密义务不局限于客户提供的信息，而是包括代理服务所涉及的全部信息，无论其源自何处；最后，保密义务不仅指向现客户，也同样适用于前客户。[18]客户保密信息的覆盖面非常广，Restatement将之定义为“任何与提供代理服务相关的非公开信息”；比如，CORPC就将律师在代理服务中获取的客户或利益相关方对具体法律法规的解读作为客户保密信息的例子。[19]本案的核心是对FINA规则的解读和适用，仲裁庭确认的管辖法律之一便是《FINA反兴奋剂规则》(“FINA DC”)。而洋大状在FINA法律委员会的工作之一就是负责FINA DC的编纂修订及其与WADA规则的对接。[20]因此，通过在FINA法律委员会的工作，洋大状得以洞悉FINA关于这些规则的解读(包括上诉时限、授权文件、违规行为，等等)；而这些解读在本案中涉及FINA的诉讼策略，是不折不扣的客户保密信息。如果说首轮仲裁中，仲裁庭的中间裁定认为洋大状没有获取保密信息，还只是揣着明白装糊涂；那么，重审中，仲裁庭明明知道双方在规则解读方面的针锋相对，却仍然坚持认为洋大状不曾获取客户保密信息，则是睁眼说瞎话了。
关于利益冲突的最后一根救命稻草是仲裁庭认定FINA自己也不认为洋大状代表WADA上诉构成利益冲突。下面从几个方向来打靶。首先，仲裁庭提到的那通电话的内容源自洋大状提供的证词，FINA的老大Marculescu在自己的证词中强调FINA自始至终反对洋大状在本案中代理WADA。[21]
其次，确认是否存在利益冲突根本不是客户的责任。CORPC明确规定：律师必须采用合理的程序来确定是否存在利益冲突，且因这方面的过失导致的利益冲突误判不得成为其违反律师行为规范的借口。[22]
当然，如果FINA在得到充分告知后出具书面许可，确实也能豁免利益冲突；但这并非仲裁庭所谓FINA没在电邮中反驳洋大状就可以蒙混过去的。
CORPC关于“充分告知后的书面许可”的定义规定：在获取许可之前，律师必须完成的步骤包括：(i) 充分披露相关信息，(ii) 说明解释重大风险，(iii) 告知合理替代方案。[23]
此外，许可必须是正式签署的书面文件，或是经过确认的口头许可的书面记录。[24]
最后，即便将FINA的电话和电邮视为豁免利益冲突的书面许可，洋大状仍然绕不出利益冲突的纠缠。因为，CORPC允许客户随时撤销曾经做出的利益冲突豁免。[25]
WADA最初提起上诉时，仅将运动员个人列为应诉方；后来，又将FINA加入本案。现在FINA因此而撤销许可，也无可非议。
洋大状抖机灵，提交仲裁庭的材料不尽不实；侥幸混过了利益冲突这关，却也给自己挖了个大坑。律师对法庭的坦诚义务
除了利益冲突规则外，美国的律师行为规范还强调律师对法庭的坦诚义务。CORPC规定：律师不得明知故犯地向法庭做出关于法律事实的不实陈述，或是隐瞒对己方不利的法理依据。[26]
本案中，洋大状隐瞒了美国律师行为规范的许多重要规定(律师客户代理关系、烫手土豆法则、客户保密信息、充分告知书面许可，等等)，严重误导了仲裁庭对利益冲突的判断。然而，在违反对法庭的坦诚义务之余，他的麻烦远不止于职业操守层面。
泄露客户机密罪
洋大状在为FINA提供法律服务时获知的FINA关于规则的解读属于《瑞士刑法典》第321条项下的客户机密信息。[27]
他在本案中披露使用该信息既触犯了泄露客户机密罪；如果FINA投诉，洋大状可能面临牢狱之灾。
伪证罪
同样，洋大状违反律师的坦诚义务，隐瞒相关法律事实，误导仲裁庭的行为也触犯了《瑞士刑法典》第306条的伪证罪。[28]
值得注意的是，瑞士的伪证罪同样适用于仲裁程序中的不实陈述，而且还覆盖非当事人提交给法庭的翻译、报告、专家意见等。[29]
反观运动员这边，洋大状可能触犯瑞士刑法的情况，倒是带来了意想不到的契机。
新修订的《瑞士国际仲裁法》将以往的重审诉请判例增编为第190a条。其中一条诉由是：如果有刑诉流程涉及的犯罪行为对仲裁结果造成影响，那么受到不利影响的一方可以要求重新审理；该犯罪行为无需被定罪，甚至在无法启动刑诉流程的情况下，可以提供其他方式的证明来诉请重审；最棒的是，这条诉由的追诉期限相当长，为仲裁结果生效后十年。[30]
节后再见，恭贺诸位虎虎生风！
失信的仲裁 | 36问-Q9：撤裁诉由是否消失
失信的仲裁 | 36问-Q6：聊聊三次中间诉请
失信的仲裁 | 36问-Q4：IDTM法律报告呢
[1] Model Rules of Professional Conduct, American Bar Association. See also, Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, Colorado Supreme Court Standing Committee.
[2] Colorado SupremeCourt, Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel. https://coloradosupremecourt.com/, retrieved as of 21 January 2022.[3] Restatement of the Law (3rd), The Law Governing Lawyers (2000), American Law Institute.[4] Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.7(a), “…a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest.”[5] Id., Rule 1.9(a), “A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or substantially related matter in which that person’sinterests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client…”[6] Picker Int’l, Inc. v. Varian Assocs., 670 F. Supp. 1363, 1365 (N.D. Ohio 1987), “A firm may not drop a client like a hot potato, especially if it is in order to keep happya far more lucrative client”; aff’d, 869 F.2d 578 (Fed. Cir. 1989).[7] Restatement (3rd), The Law Governing Lawyers, sec. 132, comment c, “If a lawyer is approached by a prospective client seeking representation in a matter adverse to an existing client, the present-client conflict may not be transformed into a former-client conflict by the lawyer’s withdrawal from the representation of the existing client.”[8] Colorado Formal Ethics Opinion (135), 20 February 2018, fn. 5, quoting Pamlab, LLC v. Hi-Tech Parmacal Co., 2009 WL 77527 (D. Colo. 9 January 2009), “a lawyer or law firm…may not simply drop one client like a ‘hot potato’ in order to treat it as thoughit were a former client for the purpose of resolving a conflict of interest.”[9] CAS Award II, 2019/A/6148, 22 June 2021, para. 164, “…Mr. Young served on the [FINA Legal Committee] for more than five years (2013-2019) and maintained his position until 1 February 2019.”[10] Id., para. 162, “In conversations beginning on 31 January 2019 with FINA’s Executive Director, Mr. Cornel Marculescu, Mr. Young was told, ‘You are independent but not to act against FINA.’”[11] Id., para 137, quoting Athlete’sposition, “WADA’s counsel when purportedly filing the Statement of Appeal and the Appeal Brief was under a severe conflict of interest owing to Mr Young…serving on FINA's Legal Committee until his resignation on 1 February 2019, a mere two weeks prior to the purported filing of the Statement of Appeal.”[12] Id., para. 5, “…WADA filed a Statement of Appeal against the FINA Doping Panel’s decision (dated 14 February 2019) naming the Athlete as the sole respondent. Four days later, WADA amended its appeal to add FINA as a second respondent.”[13] Id., para. 202, “The Athlete’s corepremise, that there exists a conflict of interest which disqualifies WADA’s counsel and therefore the appeal, is hopeless. His application is hereby rejected.”[14] Id., para. 197, “Being a member of theLegal Committee does not per se create a lawyer-client relationship.”[15] C. Mortimer, Know When to Hold ‘Em, Know When to Fold ‘Em, Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, quoting People v. Morley, 725 P.2d 510, 517 (Colo.1986), “[An attorney-client relationship is] established when it is shown that the client seeks and receives the advice of alawyer on the legal consequences of the client’s past or contemplated actions.” https://coloradosupremecourt.com/newsletters/january_2014/Know%20When%20to%20Hold%20'Em%20Know%20When%20to%20Fold%20'Em.htm, retrieved as of 21 January 2022.[16] CAS Award II, para. 177, “It was also well aware at the time that Mr. Young joined the Committee that he has a long record (since 2000) of representing WADA, including at the CAS.”[17] K. Faglioni, Terminating Client Relationship to Solve Conflicts Problem – a.k.a. the “HotPotato” Doctrine, Association of Corporate Counsel, “In this situation, the courts usually disqualify the firm from representing the client who initiated the action against the other client. One apparent rationale behind this rule is that the client ‘creating’ the conflict should be the one to lose its preferred lawyer,” citing S. Miller, Conflicts of Interest in Corporate Litigation, 48 Bus. Law 141, 194 (1992). https://www.acc.com/sites/default/files/2019-03/10-30-18-Materials-5.pdf, retrieved as of 21 January 2022. See also, Tipton v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 872 F.2d 1491, 1498-1499 (11th Cir. 1989).[18] Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.8(b), “A lawyer shall not use information relating to representation of a client to the disadvantage of the client…”；Rule 1.9(c), “A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a clientin a matter shall not thereafter: (1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client…”; and Rule 1.6(a), ct. [3], “The confidentiality rule, for example, applies not only to matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to all information relatingto the representation, whatever its source.”[19] Restatement (3rd), The Law Governing Lawyers, sec. 59, “Confidential client information consists of information relating to representation of a client, other than information that is generally known.” See also, Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.8, ct. [5], “The Rule does not prohibit uses that do not disadvantage the client. For example, a lawyer who learns a government agency’s interpretation of trade legislation during the representation of one client may properly use that information to benefit other client.”[20] CAS Award II, para. 211, “Accordingly, the FINA DC (2021 edition) and the ISTI (2017 edition) govern…”; and para. 195, quoting the FINA Constitution, “The powers and duties of the Legal Committee are…(b) to assist the Bureau, FINA Committees and the commissions in drafting amendments to the Constitution, FINA Rules and regulations…”[21] Id., para. 182, “Specific details of Mr. Young’s interactions with Mr. Marculescu are set out in a table listed in a ‘Supplemental Statement of Mr. Richard Young’ dated 26 June 2019”; and para. 164, “These assertions are supported in a statement by Mr. Marculescu, attached to FINA’s pleading on the same issue, in which Mr. Marculescu notes that FINA ‘has from the very beginning opposed’ Mr. Young’s retention by WADA in this matter.”[22] Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.7, ct. [3], “To determine whether a conflict of interest exists, a lawyer should adopt reasonable procedures, appropriate for the size and type of firm and practice,to determine in both litigation and non-litigation matters the persons and issues involved…Ignorance caused by a failure to institute such procedures will not excuse a lawyer’s violation of this Rule.”[23] Id., Rule 1.0(e), “‘Informed consent’denotes the agreement by a person to a proposed course of conduct after the lawyer has communicated adequate information and explanation about the material risk of and reasonable available alternatives to the proposed course of conduct.”[24] Id., Rule 1.7, ct. [20], “Such a writing may consist of a document executed by the client or one that the lawyerpromptly records and transmits to the client following an oral consent.”[25] Id., Rule 1.7, ct. [21], “A client who has given consent to a conflict may revoke the consent…at any time.”[26] Id., Rule 3.3(a), “A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; (2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel…”[27] Swiss Criminal Code (2021), art. 321, “Any person who in his capacity as a…, lawyer, defenselawyer,… or as an assistant to any of the foregoing persons discloses confidential information that has been confided to him in his professional capacity or which has come to his knowledge in the practice of his profession shall be liable on complaint to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty.”[28] Id., art. 306, “Any person who is a party to civil proceedings and, following an express caution by the judge that he must tell the truth and notification of the penalties for failure to do so, gives false evidence in relation to the case shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty.”[29] Id., art. 307, “Any person who appears in judicial proceedings as a witness, expert witness, translator or interpreterand gives false evidence or provides a false report, a false expert opinion or a false translation in relation to the case shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding five years or to a monetary penalty”; and art. 309, “Articles 306-308 also apply to…arbitration proceedings.”[30] Swiss Private International Law Act (2021), art. 190a(1), “A party may request the revision of an award…(b) if criminal proceedings have established that the award was influenced, to the detriment ofthe challenging party, by a crime or misdemeanour, even in the absence of any conviction; if criminal proceedings cannot be pursued, proof can be furnished by other means…”; and art. 190a(2), “The request for revision must be filed within 90 days of the discovery of the ground for revision. Except in cases provided for by paragraph 1(b), the right to request revision shall expire ten years from the date on which the award has come into force.”