To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
With the publication of the Panama Papers in 2016, law firms and attorneys came under the spotlight of international anti-money laundering efforts. It became clear that attorneys, protected by the attorney-client privilege, play a significant role in concealing the origin of illicit funds and the constructing of offshore company-schemes. The public outcry prompted legislators to hold these facilitators accountable and to prevent money-laundering activities by imposing reporting obligation on them, whenever there is the suspicion of a client being involved in illicit activities. Unsurprisingly, attorney and professional associations voiced considerable opposition to these legislative efforts claiming an erosion of the attorney client privilege and nothing less than an attack on the rule of law. This article examines the attorney-client privilege from a historical, empirical, and constitutional perspective. A brief analysis of the legal frameworks in Germany and Switzerland exemplifies how reporting obligations affect legal practice and what challenges exist for attorneys. Both countries are considered global hubs for money laundering activities. The legal concepts of holding attorneys accountable in the neighboring countries differ in some respects. In conclusion, it shows that the legal professions successfully managed to widely avoid a ‘responsibilization’.
In 1944 Raphael Lemkin wrote in his book titled Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: “By Genocide we mean the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group.” Four years later, on 9 December 1948 the term “genocide” coined by Lemkin simply by merging the Greek word “genos” (people) and the Latin word “caedere” (to kill) was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in the Genocide Convention. Now, six decades later an international conference on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Genocide Convention took place from the 4th – 6th December in Marburg and the city of Frankfurt in Hesse/Germany sponsored mainly by the German Foreign Office and the Fritz-Thyssen Foundation. The main purpose was to discuss the implications of the genocide convention from 1948 on an international platform with scholars from different countries and disciplines.
The influence of baseline severity has been examined for antidepressant
medications but has not been studied properly for cognitive–behavioural
therapy (CBT) in comparison with pill placebo.
To synthesise evidence regarding the influence of initial severity on
efficacy of CBT from all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which
CBT, in face-to-face individual or group format, was compared with
pill-placebo control in adults with major depression.
A systematic review and an individual-participant data meta-analysis
using mixed models that included trial effects as random effects. We used
multiple imputation to handle missing data.
We identified five RCTs, and we were given access to individual-level
data (n = 509) for all five. The analyses revealed that
the difference in changes in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression between
CBT and pill placebo was not influenced by baseline severity (interaction
P = 0.43). Removing the non-significant interaction
term from the model, the difference between CBT and pill placebo was a
standardised mean difference of –0.22 (95% CI –0.42 to –0.02,
P = 0.03, I2 = 0%).
Patients suffering from major depression can expect as much benefit from
CBT across the wide range of baseline severity. This finding can help
inform individualised treatment decisions by patients and their
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.