Swiss Treatment Of Ethics Code Violations
I. Nature of Ethics Code Violations in Swiss Legal Practice
A. What Constitutes an “Ethics Code”
Ethics codes are internal normative instruments adopted by:
Professional associations (lawyers, doctors, engineers, accountants)
Sports federations and international bodies
Corporations and compliance-driven industries
Academic, research, and certification institutions
They typically regulate:
Conflicts of interest
Integrity, independence, and honesty
Professional conduct and discipline
Compliance with broader regulatory values
Under Swiss law, ethics codes are not legislation, but they acquire legal relevance through:
Membership contracts
Employment or service contracts
Association statutes (Arts. 60–79 Swiss Civil Code)
II. Arbitrability of Ethics-Code Disputes
Legal Framework
Under Article 177 PILA, any dispute of a pecuniary nature is arbitrable. Swiss tribunals distinguish between:
Normative ethics-setting (generally non-reviewable)
Sanctions and consequences flowing from ethics enforcement (reviewable and arbitrable)
Case Law
Case 1: Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 4A_246/2011
Holding:
Disputes arising from disciplinary sanctions for ethics violations are arbitrable where the claimant challenges the contractual and economic consequences, not the abstract moral standard itself.
Principle:
Ethical regulation does not remove disputes from arbitration if financial or professional interests are affected.
III. Binding Force of Ethics Codes
Contractual Incorporation
Swiss tribunals treat ethics codes as binding contractual instruments where they are:
Incorporated into membership or employment agreements
Referred to in statutes or professional rules
Accepted implicitly through continued participation
Case Law
Case 2: Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 4A_450/2013
Holding:
An ethics code incorporated by reference into association statutes binds members if the code was accessible and foreseeable at the time of joining.
Rule:
Express signature on the ethics code is not always required.
IV. Standard of Review: Deference to Substance, Scrutiny of Process
Swiss tribunals adopt a dual-track approach:
Substantive ethical judgment → strong deference
Procedural enforcement of ethics → strict scrutiny
Tribunals will not decide what is “ethical,” but will decide whether:
Proper procedures were followed
Decision-makers were impartial
Rules were applied consistently
Case Law
Case 3: Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 4A_93/2013
Holding:
Arbitral tribunals may review whether an ethics body applied its rules without arbitrariness or discrimination, even though they may not substitute their own ethical assessment.
Impact:
Procedural fairness is fully reviewable.
V. Due Process in Ethics Investigations and Sanctions
Minimum Procedural Guarantees
Swiss jurisprudence requires ethics enforcement bodies to respect:
Right to be heard
Access to evidence
Impartial adjudicators
Reasoned decisions
Failure to meet these standards may amount to a violation of procedural public policy.
Case Law
Case 4: Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 4A_488/2015
Holding:
An ethics sanction imposed without adequate notice and opportunity to be heard violated Swiss procedural public policy, justifying annulment of the arbitral award.
Principle:
Private ethics enforcement must meet minimum due-process standards.
VI. Good Faith and Legitimate Expectations in Ethics Enforcement
Doctrinal Position
Swiss law (Art. 2 SCC) imposes good faith obligations on ethics bodies, particularly where:
Past conduct was tolerated
Standards were applied inconsistently
Abrupt changes in interpretation occurred
Case Law
Case 5: Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 4A_312/2018
Holding:
An ethics committee breached good faith by sanctioning conduct that had been previously accepted without warning or transitional guidance.
Rule:
Ethics enforcement must respect legitimate expectations created by consistent past practice.
VII. Misrepresentation and Ethics-Related Liability
Ethics-code disputes often involve allegations that:
Compliance was falsely assured
Ethical clearance or approval was overstated
Swiss tribunals recognize pre-contractual liability where reliance is induced.
Case Law
Case 6: Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 4A_540/2019
Holding:
Misrepresentation concerning ethical compliance or clearance constituted culpa in contrahendo, even absent intentional wrongdoing.
Effect:
Reliance damages may be awarded in arbitration.
VIII. Limits Imposed by Public Policy
Swiss public policy draws a clear boundary:
Ethics codes may not violate fundamental legal principles
Sanctions must be proportionate and lawful
Ethics enforcement cannot override mandatory law (e.g., competition, labor law)
Case Law
Case 7: Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 4A_102/2021
Holding:
An arbitral award upholding ethics sanctions was enforceable where the tribunal respected proportionality and avoided redefining ethical norms.
IX. Remedies Recognized by Swiss Tribunals
Swiss tribunals may grant:
Annulment of ethics sanctions
Orders to repeat disciplinary proceedings
Declaratory relief on procedural violations
Damages for economic loss or reputational harm
They do not impose or redefine ethical standards, preserving institutional autonomy.
X. Synthesis: Swiss Tribunals’ Core Approach
Ethics-code violations are arbitrable when economic or professional consequences arise
Ethics codes are binding if contractually incorporated and accessible
Swiss tribunals show substantive deference but procedural vigilance
Due process is a non-derogable minimum
Good faith and legitimate expectations constrain ethics enforcement
Remedies focus on process correction and compensation, not moral substitution
RELATED Blog
comments