Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyse how lawyers in two of the largest European economies manage the contradictory requirements set by anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) legislation on the one hand and professional codes of ethics on the other hand.

The study is based on qualitative interviews with French and German lawyers. It asks “How do European lawyers handle the conflicting demands ensuing from their roles as frontlines workers?” The paper uses lawyers’ day-to-day practices and variations in member states’ transpositions of the European Union directives as a starting point to study AML/CTF in the miniscule.

The article shows that contextual institutional restraints and cultural factors have significant impact on the possibility to enlist for-profit actors in the fight against terrorism an organised crime.

This research highlights several factors inherent in AML/CTF regulation that warrant further research. Not only should further work be carried to broaden the understanding of lawyers but also other actors included in this policy area.

The study explains why French and German lawyers do not comply as expected by the legislator. If increased compliance is required, then the paper provides input into what measures can be taken, by policy, enforcement and supervision.

The study focusses on a hard-to-reach group of actors in AML/CTF regulation that has never before been studied in detail. As recent scandals have shown, lawyers are key actors in global finance but have rarely been scrutinised in their AML compliance norms and routines.

The user-centered approach to understanding information use and users has shaped research in library and information science (LIS). In a user-centered environment, catalogers are told to focus on users and adapt standards to meet users’ needs while following standards in order to be efficient in their jobs. This study describes three academic cataloging units as they negotiate both the demands to follow and adapt these standards to meet users’ needs. New institutional theory served as a framework for the study. The results suggest that standards and users are pressures that cataloging units negotiate in their jobs, along with demands for work efficiency and professional legitimacy. While negotiating these pressures, catalogers and cataloging units redefine their work jurisdiction and maintain legitimacy to remain relevant in a complex work environment. Understanding how catalogers negotiate the normative institutional pressures of standards and users leads to an understanding of the complex nature of work in areas that deal with issues of standards and users, shows how an area within a profession maintains legitimacy when the profession no longer values that work, and, finally, shows the limits of the user-centered focus in LIS practice.