All future 2017 events

View All Summary Expand all
Corporate Governance and Regulation: East Meets West Conference   View Summary
17 August 2017 to 18 August 2017


Click here to register.

Please note: Individual online registrations MUST be paid by Mastercard or VISA. To pay by cheque or arrange a group registration, please email for an invoice. We apologise for any inconvenience.


This two day conference discusses key developments in the field of corporate governance and regulation in Australia, the United States and Asia.

The conference is convened by The University of Sydney Law School together with the National University of Singapore, University of Auckland, Vanderbilt University, Yonsei University, and includes many leading national and international scholars in the field of corporate governance.

The conference will traverse a range of topical contemporary issues in corporate governance and regulation including:

  • The nature of the corporation and its regulatory implications
  • Lessons from the rise of independent directors in Australia and Asia
  • Comparative analysis of directors' duties (and legal safe harbours) in Australia, the United States and Asia
  • The exceptionalism of corporate governance in China - an international comparison of the Chinese board of supervisors system
  • Comparative analysis of whistleblowing as a corporate governance technique
  • The changing role of shareholders in corporate governance - shareholder activism and the rise of shareholder Stewardship Codes in Asia
  • Developments in merger litigation
  • Administrative regulation-making in Australia and the United States.

Speakers include:


View the conference program (pdf).


Registration (inc. GST)
Full fee (for 2 days): $100
Students: $50
Alumni: $80

There is no one day rate.


Thursday 17 August: 9.15am - 4pm
Friday 18 August: 9.30am - 3.30pm



This conference is hosted on behalf of Sydney Law School by Ross Parsons Centre of Commercial, Corporate and Taxation Law (Law & Business program), and Centre of Asian and Pacific Law (CAPLUS), forms part of The University of Sydney’s Innovation Week and is generously co-sponsored by:

  • Centre for Asian and Pacific Law (CAPLUS) at The University of Sydney Law School
  • Sydney Southeast Asian Centre (SSEAC) at The University of Sydney
  • China Studies Centre (CSC) at The University of Sydney


Sydney Ideas - Hong Kong Twenty Years After the Hand-Over   View Summary
22 August 2017

Hong Kong Twenty Years after the Hand-over: developments since 1997 and prospects for the future


A Sydney Ideas forum co-presented with the China Studies Centre and the Centre for Asian and Pacific Law, Sydney Law School.

This forum will examine developments in Hong Kong in the 20 years since it became the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and prospects for Hong Kong's future under Chinese rule. Each of our speakers will present a short paper, then we will open up the floor to audience questions.

Chair: Professor Luigi Tomba, , Director of the China Studies Centre


  • Professor Bing Ling, Professor of Chinese Law and Associate Dean (International), Sydney Law School and Associate Director (China) of the Centre for Asian and Pacific Law on Twenty Years of Interpretation of the Basic Law by Beijing: a troubled story
  • Dr Kevin Carrico, Lecturer in Chinese Studies at Macquarie University and the author of The Great Han: Race, Nationalism and Tradition in China Today on A Destabilizing Stability: Hong Kong 20 years after 1997
  • Dr Joyce Nip, Senior Lecturer in Chinese media studies at the University of Sydney

More speaker information and abstracts


Free, however registration is essential. Please click here to register.

CPD Points: 1.5

Freedom of Speech and the Case for Defamation Law Reform    View Summary
24 August 2017

Inaugural Professorial lecture presented by Professor David Rolph, University of Sydney Law School

Chaired by: Greg Tolhurst, Executive Director, NSW Bar Association

About the seminar:
Freedom of speech has become politically prominent and contested in Australia in recent years, most notably through the long running debate about the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) s 18C. Public discussion about freedom of speech has tended to be narrowly focused. There are many areas of law which restrict or regulate freedom of speech, many of which are long-standing and well known. Amongst the most significant, well established and pervasive is the tort of defamation.

The purpose of defamation law is to strike a balance between the protection of reputation and freedom of speech. Defamation law then is the common law cause of action with freedom of speech as a central interest. Given the renewed focus in Australia on freedom of speech, it is an opportune time to revisit the issue of defamation law reform. The last New South Wales Law Reform Commission report on defamation was released over twenty years ago; the last Australian Law Reform Commission report on defamation was released almost forty years ago. Much has changed in the intervening decades. The national, uniform defamation laws, commencing in 2006, were principally directed to achieving the goal of uniformity, rather than substantive law reform. There is then still scope for further reform. This lecture outlines the case for defamation law reform and the principles that should inform future reform processes.

This lecture has been organized in association with the Ross Parsons Centre of Commercial, Corporate and Taxation Law at Sydney Law School.

Registration is not required

Click here for flyer

CPD points = 1

JSI seminar : What does it mean to 'offend', 'insult' 'humiliate' and 'intimidate'?    View Summary
24 August 2017


Click here to register

JSI seminar: What does it mean to 'offend', 'insult' 'humiliate' and 'intimidate'? Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act(Cth) and the problem of harm

Speaker: Dr Sarah Sorial, University of Wollongong

There has been significant public debate about the wording of section 18C of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act (RDA), specifically in relation to the words "offend" and "insult." The inclusion of these words in the offence, it is argued, is not only too broad and too vague, but also unduly restricts freedom of speech. Part of the problem is that the legislation does not define the key terms - offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate, or establish a harm threshold - and so leaves itself open to the charge that it is too imprecise to have any meaningful legal content.

In this paper, Sarah Sorial takes up this definitional challenge with reference to Joel Feinberg's discussion of harm and its relation to hurt and offense. She argues that while the terms offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate may be conceptually different, and may not necessarily cause harm in and of themselves, they are in fact closely interrelated. Words that offend, insult, intimidate or humiliate, when uttered in particular contexts, can and do cause harm. Harm is defined in terms of setbacks or damage to a person's interests and can be understood in both an objective and subjective way. Dr Sorial argues that because there are compelling reasons for restricting speech that causes harm more generally, and because speech that offends, insults, humiliates and intimidates, can also cause harm (as she will demonstrate), there is nothing unduly restrictive about s18C in its current form.

About the Speaker

Dr Sarah Sorial is a senior lecturer in the Philosophy Program in the Faculty of Law, Humanities and Arts. Between 2008-2011, she was an ARC Post Doctoral Research Fellow at Macquarie University (2008) and The University of Wollongong (2009-11). Sarah completed her undergraduate degrees in philosophy and law at Macquarie University. She was awarded her PhD in philosophy from The University of New South Wales in 2006. Sarah has also taught at Macquarie University and UNSW. Sarah's research specialization is primarily at the intersection of political philosophy and philosophy of law. The focus of her current project is on the limits of free speech and deliberative democracy. Other recent publications are concerned with issues in rights theory, feminism and phenomenology.

CPD Points: 2

The John Lehane Memorial Lecture   View Summary
29 August 2017


To register, email Anja Vogel -

Speaker: Lord Justice David Richards

Allens Linklaters invites you to join them for the eighth John Lehane Memorial Lecture.

Lord Justice David Richards will speak on the topic, 'Is equity fair?'.

About the Speaker

Lord Justice David Richards is a Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. He was appointed a High Court Judge (Chancery Division) in 2003 and a chairman of the Competition Appeal Tribunal in 2004. He was chairman of the Insolvency Rules Committee from 2005 to 2015 and is co-chair of the Judicial Committee of the International Insolvency Institute. He was appointed as a Lord Justice of Appeal in 2015.

John Lehane made a significant contribution to the study and practice of law in Australia. He was a leading banking law partner of Allen Allen & Hemsley and, ultimately, chairman. In 1995, he was appointed to the Federal Court of Australia, where he served with distinction until 2001. John Lehane lectured in law at the University of Sydney for many years and co-authored Australia's leading text on equity.

Register by Tuesday 8 August:

Contact Anja Vogel:


Phone: 02 9230 4723

Post Truth Initiative Series: Wrongful Conviction and Truth   View Summary
29 August 2017

Wrongful Conviction and Truth

When does evidence obscure the truth? Join us for a forum on the avoidable causes of wrongful conviction.

Wrongful convictions can and do happen - it's a sad fact of the Australian legal system. This panel will look at how evidence in legal proceedings can inadvertently support false conclusions if handled by non-experts (as is usually the case). Panel members are associate lecturer in psychology Celine van Golde, barrister and senior lecturer in law Miiko Kumar, both of the ‘Not Guilty’ project at the University of Sydney, and professional linguist Helen Fraser, of Forensic Phonetics Australia.

They will present real-life cases in which errors, by eyewitnesses, police, prosecutors, and other experts led to people spent years in jail following unfair trials. With reference to their ongoing research on human perception and memory they then ask: what can we do to prevent future miscarriages of justice?


  • Dr Celine Van Golde, Forensic Psychology Lab, School of Psychology, Faculty of Science
  • Dr Helen Fraser, specialist in cognitive phonetics
  • Miiko Kumar, Barrister and  Senior Lecturer, University of Sydney Law School

This event is a part of our Post Truth Initiative Series presented by the Post Truth Initiative, a Sydney Research Excellence Initiative at the University of Sydney.

The Post Truth Initiative Series examines fake news, alternative facts, lies, bullshit, and propaganda, from a range of perspectives-from the courtroom to cancer research, from philosophy to screenplays, from Orwell to Sean Spicer-with the goal to better understand the post-truth crisis, and to advise on how facts and reason might survive in this climate.

Series Chair: Professor Nick Enfield, Professor of Linguistics.


Free and open to all with online registration requested. Please click here for the registration page.

Sydney Juris Doctor (JD) 101: an insider's guide   View Summary
7 September 2017
Thinking about a career in law? Wondering what studying the JD is all about? Join current JD student Harry Simons and get an insider's view on what life is like as a student of the Juris Doctor. Open to those from any discipline, these sessions will provide you with an overview of the JD program. You'll also be given practical examples of readings and tips about how you, as a JD student, would be expected to tackle these. Find out how you can succeed in the JD program
2017 Dennis Leslie Mahoney Prize Lecture: Re-Imagining the Rule of Law   View Summary
7 September 2017


Click here to register

2017 Dennis Leslie Mahoney Prize Lecture: Re-Imagining the Rule of Law

The rule of law is a concept at once too important to ignore, and too confused and confusing to guide. It needs and deserves re-imagining. Moreover, if we are to understand its character conditions and consequences, the legal imagination, if such a solecism be allowed, is as likely to hinder as to help.

Many, particularly lawyers, will resist such a suggestion. Where better to seek wisdom about the rule of law than from lawyers? Surely, like plumbers with toilets, and dentists with drills, they know whereof they speak. And why 're-imagine' a concept long central to great legal traditions, that has today come to have unprecedented popularity and more important, speaks to issues of profound importance? Why not stick with established insights and understandings, enriched as they have been with age-old reflection by those whose job - whose vocation indeed - has been to sustain the rule of law. Maybe some sediment might need to be brushed off, perhaps something added here and there, but why re-imagined? If, on the other hand, you are impatient with the idea, why not just abandon it it and turn to something else.

Notwithstanding the force of those objections, I believe the rule of law needs to be substantially re-imagined, rather than either recycled, on the one hand, or discarded, on the other. Not recycled, since conventional understandings have too often led to misguided explications, identifications, expectations, and efforts, quite apart from the waste of huge amounts of money. Not discarded, since like reflection on many of the most important (and also contested) concepts in the lexicon of political and legal morality, such as justice and democracy, equality and liberty, the rule of law engages us in fundamental issues of politics, morality, philosophy, and law (not to mention economics, which I don't mention only because I don't understand it). Instead, while we should start from traditional understandings and insights, we cannot end there. We must also be prepared to amend them, indeed re-imagine them quite radically, where they mislead or do not lead far enough. So much so, that to further the ends of the rule of law, we might need to leave conventional imaginings of it far behind.

About the Speaker

Martin Krygier is Gordon Samuels Professor of Law and Social Theory, UNSW, Adjunct Professor at RegNet, ANU, and recurrent visiting professor at the Graduate School of Social Research, Warsaw, and the International Institute of Sociology of Law, Onati. He is a fellow of the Australian Academy of Social Sciences. His writings are generally concerned to explore the moral characters and consequences of large institutions, among them law, state and bureaucracy.

His most recent book is Philip Selznick. Ideals in the World. In 2005, he published Civil Passions, a selection of his essays on matters of public debate. Between Fear and Hope. Hybrid Thoughts on Public Values is based on his 1997 Boyer lectures. In recent years, he has written extensively on the rule of law - its nature, conditions, and challenges - and on prospects for the rule of law in post-dictatorship, post-conflict, and generally politically scarred societies. Apart from many articles on these themes, he has edited and contributed to Spreading Democracy and the Rule of Law?; Rethinking the Rule of Law after Communism; Community and Legality: the Intellectual Legacy of Philip Selznick; The Rule of Law after Communism; Marxism and Communism. Posthumous Reflections on Politics, Society, and Law; Bureaucracy: The Career of a Concept (Edward Arnold, 1980). Apart from academic writings he contributes to journals of ideas and public debate.

In 2016 he was awarded the Dennis Leslie Mahoney Prize in Legal Theory.

CPD Points: 1.5

Neuroscience & Society: Ethical, Legal & Clinical Implications of Neuroscience Research    View Summary
14 September 2017 to 15 September 2017


Click here to register for the lecture on 14 September at Sydney Law School

Lecture: Thursday 14 September, Sydney Law School

Is Neuroscience Relevant to Criminal Responsibility? Yes and No

Speaker:  Katrina Sifferd, Elmhurst College, USA

Neuroscientific evidence has been offered in criminal courts to prove certain offenders are partially or fully excused from criminal responsibility. I will argue that neuroscientific data is relevant to the capacity responsibility of certain classes of offenders. Contra Morse, we do have some idea how the brain grounds the capacities necessary for understanding legal and moral rules, as well as volitional control; thus neuroscience can provide evidence that some groups of offenders have diminished capacity to commit a crime. This is the case with juveniles. However, work in the neuroscience of psychopathy does not indicate that as a class psychopaths suffer from diminished capacity. Therefore a diagnosis of psychopathy may be irrelevant to criminal responsibility.

About the speaker

Katrina Sifferd holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of London, King's College, and is Professor and Chair of Philosophy at Elmhurst College. After leaving King's, Katrina held a post-doctoral position as Rockefeller Fellow in Law and Public Policy and Visiting Professor at Dartmouth College.

Before becoming a philosopher, Katrina earned a Juris Doctorate and worked as a senior research analyst on criminal justice projects for the National Institute of Justice. Katrina is the author of numerous articles and book chapters on criminal responsibility, reduction, folk psychology and law, and punishment. She is currently writing a book called The Responsible Brain with William Hirstein and Ty Fagan. The book project is funded by a grant from the Templeton Foundation on the Philosophy and Science of Self-Control.

Time: 5.30 - 7pm

Venue:   Sydney Law School, Law Foyer, level 2, New Law School Building (F10), Eastern Avenue, Camperdown, The University of Sydney

Click here to register for the lecture with Katrina Sifferd on Thursday 14 September at Sydney Law School.



Neuroscience & Society Conference: Thursday & Friday 14 & 15 September

Almost twenty years since the "Decade of the Brain", governments are investing heavily in large global efforts to map the human brain and identify the neurobiological basis of thought and behaviour. These initiatives include the US BRAIN Initiative, the European Human Brain Project, the China Brain Project, andthe Australian Brain Initiative. Developments in neuroscience are promising to improve our ability to treat or prevent mental illness, neurological disorders, and cognitive decline, and mitigate the harms of criminal behaviour.

This burgeoning area of neuroscience research raises critical ethical, legal, and social challenges that have been recognised by the integration of neuroethical and neurolegal research within these initiatives. How might these developments in neuroscience impact Australian society?

Neuroscience & Society will feature leading national and international academics and practitioners in an interdisciplinary program addressing themes including:

  • Ageing and dementia
  • The developing brain
  • Disability and mental health
  • Disorders of self control
  • Moral cognition and moral technologies (e.g. nudges, sensor society)
  • Artificial intelligence and machine learning


Confirmed international speakers include:

  • Prof Katrina Sifferd, Faculty of Philosophy, Elmhurst College (USA)
  • Brian Earp, Oxford Centre for Neuroethics, Oxford University (UK)
  • Dr Katy de Kogel, Ministry of Security and Justice, The Netherlands (via videolink)

Neuroscience &Society will also officially launch the Australian Neuroethics Network, a collection of leading researchers and practitioners examining the implications of neuroscience for Australia.Become part of this important Australian initiative.

Time and venues:

14 September - Sydney Law School

15 September - Macquarie University

Registration and program details will be released shortly. Watch this space! Enquiries may be emailed to or

Neuroscience and Society is supported by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Integrative Brain Function Neuroethics Program, the Centre for Agency Values and Ethics at Macquarie University, and the  University of Sydney Brain and Mind Centre.


Juris Doctor Information Session   View Summary
14 September 2017


Click here to register

Join our information session and find out about the University of Sydney's flagship graduate entry law degree the Juris Doctor (JD) program.

The JD is one of Australia's most reputable graduate entry degrees and develops your skills of analysis, research, writing and advocacy. With its unique international focus, the JD program will prepare you for legal practice in the modern global age.

Learn about the features of the Sydney JD, and why studying the JD can broaden your career opportunities. Find out about the admission requirements, fees and scholarships. Hear from a current JD student about what studying the JD is all about.


Julius Stone Address 2017: Professor Seana Shiffrin   View Summary
18 September 2017


Click here to register

Julius Stone Address 2017: Democratic Law

This lecture offers an account of democracy's intrinsic communicative value and law's special role in realizing that value. To nurture and sustain the social bases of self-respect and an operative sense of social solidarity, citizens must convey to each other their convictions of mutual equality, their commitments to respect their essential human needs and moral rights, and their mutual commitment to cooperate and provide every member with a stable place of belonging. The morally incumbent forms of interpersonal communication require a sort of public commitment undertaken through articulate action. Law serves as the requisite device of public communication that has qualities of substantive expression that mere discursive messages lack. Law is public, available for all to see, and takes the form of an ongoing, articulate commitment. But, for law to convey the message that citizens must convey, each of us must be able to contribute to its formation; hence, for law to play this special function, it must be democratically forged. The lecture traces these theoretical connections and some distinctive implications for democratic participation and respect for law.


About the Speaker

Seana Valentine Shiffrin is Chair and Professor of Philosophy and Pete Kameron Professor of Law and Social Justice at UCLA, where she has taught since 1992 and is the co-director and co-founder of the UCLA Law and Philosophy Program. Shiffrin received her B.A. degree from the University of California, Berkeley where she was the University Medallist. She attended Oxford University as a Marshall Scholar and received the B.Phil. with Distinction and the D.Phil. in Philosophy. She earned her J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. Shiffrin teaches courses on moral and political philosophy as well as contracts, freedom of speech, constitutional rights and individual autonomy, remedies, and legal theory. She served for sixteen years as an associate editor of the journal Philosophy and Public Affairs where she is now an advisory editor. She is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a recent winner of the Rutter Award for excellence in teaching. Her research addresses issues in moral, political and legal philosophy, as well as matters of legal doctrine that concern equality, autonomy, and the social conditions for their realization. She has written extensively on the morality of promising and the role of law in facilitating and fostering moral character, with a special emphasis on the connection between contracts and promises. Her recent book, Speech Matters: On Lying, Morality, and the Law explored the ethics of communication and the connection between the prohibition on lying, freedom of speech, and moral progress.


CPD Points: 1.5


This event is generously sponsored by the Educational Heritage Foundation.


JSI Seminar: The German Approach to Proportionality: A Model for Australia?   View Summary
12 October 2017


Click here to register

Speaker: Professor Niels Petersen, University of Münster

The proportionality test is an increasingly popular tool of fundamental rights analysis. After it has been developed by the German Federal Constitutional Court in the 1950s, it has been spread to different jurisdictions around the world. In Australia, the High Court recently introduced the proportionality test in McCloy v. New South Wales. However, proportionality is often criticized in the legal theory debate as an inadequate or even "irrational" legal standard because it requires the comparison of incommensurable values.

Professor Petersen's presentation has a two-fold aim. First, it addresses the theoretical critique of proportionality and shows that, while the gist of the critique is justified, this does not lead to the inadequacy of proportionality as a legal standard. Second, it observes how the German Federal Constitutional Court uses the proportionality test in practice and analyzes whether this practice could inform the debate on proportionality in Australian constitutional law.

About the Speaker

Niels Petersen is Professor of Public Law, International Law, and EU Law at the University of Münster since February 2015. He holds a PhD in law from Goethe University in Frankfurt and an M.A. in Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences from Columbia University. From 2004 to 2006, he was a Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods in Heidelberg, and from 2007-2015, he worked as a Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods in Bonn. Furthermore, he visited at the New York University School of Law as a Visiting Doctoral Researcher (2006/07) and as a Hauser Research Scholar (2012/13). His research focuses on comparative constitutional law, human rights law, the sources of public international law as well as the economic analysis of law. His most important publication is a recent monograph on Proportionality and Judicial Activism: Fundamental Rights Adjudication in Canada, Germany, and South Africa (Cambridge University Press, 2017).

CPD Points: 2

Law & Business Seminar: Whistleblower Protections in ASX 200 Codes of Conduct   View Summary
19 October 2017


Click here to register for this seminar.

Please note: Individual online registrations MUST be paid by Mastercard or VISA. To pay by cheque or arrange a group registration, please email for an invoice. We apologise for any inconvenience.


Speaker: Dr Olivia Dixon, The University of Sydney Law School

Whistleblowing is considered to be an integral component of corporate governance through exposing and remedying corruption, fraud and other types of wrongdoing in both the public and private sector.

While whistleblowers face a very real threat of retaliation, the current regime which purports to prohibit retaliation against private-sector whistleblowers is fragmented, complex and suffers from significant gaps. In the absence of progress towards comprehensive private-sector whistleblower protection, private commitments contained in corporate codes of conduct may provide an interim regulatory solution by setting a 'best practices' benchmark and diffusing norms that influence organisational behaviour and culture.

This seminar will examine the whistleblower policies of the ASX 200, comparing the private commitments contained therein to those currently available under statute.

About the Speaker

Olivia Dixon  joined Sydney Law School in 2013 as Lecturer in the Regulation of Investment and Financial Markets. Olivia teaches and researches in corporate law, with a particular interest in corporate crime. Prior to entering academia, Olivia practiced as a corporate finance attorney in Sydney and New York. Before becoming an attorney in 2003, Olivia worked as an analyst for a corporate finance company and at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Olivia has an LLM and JSD from New York University, where her doctoral dissertation was an empirical study examining the role of mutual funds as corporate governance monitors.

Commentator: Jason Gray, Allen & Overy

 Chair:  Professor Jennifer Hill, The University of Sydney Law School


Registration (GST inclusive)
Full Fee: $77
Sydney Law School Alumni: $66
Sydney Law School Full Time Student: $44
Group 3+: $55


CPD Points: 1


Law & Business Seminar: Does Conviction Matter?    View Summary
29 November 2017


Click here to register for this seminar.

Please note: Individual online registrations MUST be paid by Mastercard or VISA. To pay by cheque or arrange a group registration, please email for an invoice. We apologise for any inconvenience.


Does Conviction Matter? Do Deferred Prosecution Agreements Affect Reputational Sanction for Corporate Crime

Speaker: Professor Jennifer Arlen, NYU School of Law

Deferred Prosecution Agreements are a hot topic in Australia at the moment. The federal government is considering their introduction to address perceived problems with prosecuting companies accused of, for example, fraud or bribery.

There has been a dramatic rise in the use of such agreements in the United States over the last couple of decades. US prosecutors regularly enter into corporate deferred and non-prosecution agreements (D/NPAs) with firms with detected criminal misconduct. Critics of this practice claim that prosecutors mute the reputational damage costs imposed on firms when they resolve cases through D/NPAs instead of requiring corporations to plead guilty. In their view, formal conviction enhances deterrence by supplementing financial penalties with enhanced reputational penalty for corporate crime.

Professor Arlen's seminar will question this claim. Professor Arlen's seminar, which is based on a joint research with Cindy Alexander of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, will show that D/NPAs do not necessarily impose smaller reputational costs than formal corporate conviction. The joint research project shows that criminal settlements impose reputational cost on firms when news of the settlement leads interested third-parties-suppliers of goods, services of capital; customers; or lenders-to be less willing to deal with a sanctioned firm on favorable terms due to the perceived risk of future harm.

About the Speaker

Jennifer Arlen is the Norma Z. Paige Professor of Law and founder and director of the Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement at New York University School of Law (NYU). She has published over 50 articles and book chapters in leading scholarly publications. Jennifer has been a visiting professor at the California Institute of Technology, Harvard Law School, and Yale Law School, and was the Ivadelle and Theodore Johnson Professor of Law and Business at USC School of Law before moving to NYU.

Commentator: Dr Olivia Dixon, The University of Sydney Law School

Chair: Associate Professor Arlie Loughnan, The University of Sydney Law School

Registration (GST inclusive)
Full Fee: $77
Sydney Law School Alumni: $66
Sydney Law School Full Time Student: $44
Group 3+: $55

CPD Points: 1


Upcoming Intensive Course:

Business Crime

27, 28, 30 November & 1 December

Engage with Professor Arlen in this intensive course which covers the law and effective enforcement policy governing crimes committed by large multinational corporations.

You can apply to study this on a one off basis without assessment.

Click here to apply.