Claudio Visco assumes IBA presidency for 2026
Following on from his position as President-Elect in 2025, Claudio Visco, a senior partner at leading Italian law firm Lipani Legal&Tax, has become IBA President for the 2026 calendar year.
He succeeds Jaime Carey, senior partner at Chilean law firm Carey, in line with their joint leadership arrangement as approved by the IBA Council.
Widely recognised as one of Italy’s foremost international business lawyers, Claudio brings more than four decades of continuous service to the IBA across its key constituencies. His presidency comes at a time of profound challenges to the international legal order, marked by increasing threats to the rule of law, judicial independence and the legal profession worldwide.
Prior to becoming President, Claudio Visco held many senior positions in the IBA, including Co-Vice President; Co-Secretary-General; Chair of the Bar Issues Commission; Co-Chair of the Securities Law Committee; and Chair of the Capital Markets Forum. He has been a member of the IBA Management Board since 2015, contributing significantly to the Association’s strategic direction and governance.
‘Knowing that I am part of a continuum working to uphold the rule of law, access to justice and the independence of the legal profession fills me with pride, but also with a deep sense of responsibility,’ said Claudio. ‘We are witnessing unprecedented violations of these fundamental principles in jurisdictions where such developments would once have been unthinkable.’
During his presidency, he will focus on expanding the IBA’s visibility and engagement across Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and the Pacific region, while further strengthening the Association’s leadership in substantive law initiatives. Recognising the importance of lawyers as defenders of the core values of our societies, he stated that he would ‘work to increase awareness of this role together with bar associations, law societies and international organisations’.
The IBA’s senior leadership is completed by Jörg Menzer, a partner at law firm Noerr, as IBA Vice-President; and Deborah Enix-Ross of Debevoise & Plimpton, as Secretary-General.
New podcast on presidential ethics in the Trump era
In January, Global Insight released a new podcast, which examines presidential ethics in the Trump 2.0 era. While US President Donald Trump and his administration’s foreign policy has created debate over international law and conduct, his unorthodox behaviour both domestically and internationally has also received criticism in terms of his disregard for ethics and for presidential norms.
From capitalising on crypto investments while being responsible for the rules governing the sector, to seeking to use his power to punish political enemies, the scale and conspicuousness of President Trump’s activities has repeatedly fallen outside the boundaries of what would normally be considered acceptable conduct in Washington. Further, some activities place a spotlight on the ‘presidential exemptions’ of which President Trump has sought to take advantage.
President Trump, his administration and family members have denied any conflicts of interest or wrongdoing in terms of ethics, including regarding the cryptocurrency sector, gifts from foreign states and perceived promotion of specific companies.
Discussing the issues are:
- Richard Painter, Associate Counsel to the President and chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W Bush;
- Kedric Payne, Campaign Legal Center, Washington, DC and former Deputy Chief Counsel at the Office of Congressional Ethics; and
- Jonathan Katz, Governance Studies Fellow, Brookings; Co-Editor, 2025 Democracy Playbook.
International Anti-Corruption Day: highlighting urgent global risks and the critical role of the legal profession
On International Anti-Corruption Day, 9 December, the IBA reaffirmed the central role of the legal profession in combating corruption, strengthening public trust and safeguarding institutions at a time when standards for global integrity are under mounting pressure.
Around the world, corruption continues to erode democratic governance, hinder economic development and weaken the rule of law. Persistent threats – including illicit financial flows and the misuse of emerging technologies – underscore the need for coordinated action across governments, professions and civil society.
The IBA has prioritised anti-corruption work for many years, providing practical support, expert guidance and sustained capacity-building to lawyers and bar associations around the globe. Through collaboration with national bars and international partners, the Association works to strengthen professional standards, encourage ethical practice and equip practitioners with the tools and networks required to challenge corruption and uphold the rule of law.
Read the full news release here.
Updated IBA Legal Agenda highlights promotion and defence of the rule of law as most pressing concern for profession
In December, the IBA published its updated Legal Agenda, which seeks to identify the key challenges facing the profession. The report highlights the promotion and defence of the rule of law as the most pressing concern for lawyers globally.
The 2025 edition of the Agenda provides an update to 2023’s version, which followed discussions with leaders of international and national law firms, as well as in-house counsel, from around the world. To inform the latest edition, two further sets of consultations were held, in April 2024 and June 2025.
‘The rule of law can no longer be assumed to be secure, even in jurisdictions that have traditionally led by example,’ said Jaime Carey, IBA President at the time of the 2025 Agenda’s publication. ‘The updated Agenda reflects the profession’s collective responsibility to defend judicial independence, uphold professional integrity and engage more actively with society on why the rule of law matters.’
The 2025 Agenda notes that AI – the issue ranked in first place in 2023’s edition – has transitioned from an emerging concern to a regulatory and operational reality. It highlights that clients are increasingly requesting AI-based legal services that aren’t yet within the scope of existing regulations. And while some jurisdictions have introduced legal frameworks for AI, significant divergence across regions is expected to persist.
Other key issues identified in 2025’s Agenda include ESG and inclusion in a fragmented regulatory environment; talent, technology and new partnership models; and reputation, public trust and the role of lawyers. The 2025 update ‘recognises that lawyers are operating at the intersection of rapid technological change, geopolitical uncertainty and rising public expectations’ and positions the legal profession ‘as a central pillar in upholding democratic values, managing technological change and maintaining public trust in an increasingly complex world,’ said Claudio Visco, IBA President for 2026.
Read the Legal Agenda 2025 here
Applications open for Academy for Leaders
Applications are now open for the 2026 IBA Law Firm Management Committee Academy for Leaders. The cutting-edge course is specially designed for law firm leaders by law firm leaders and will provide attendees with techniques on how to grow law firm revenue, be an effective and successful leader in a new fast changing environment and develop market position and strategic advantage for their firms.
Attendees are typically current or future law firm leaders, central management and/or office, practice and/or sector leaders and senior business professionals within law firms (CEO/COO level).
The course examines legal services and explains what is changing, the aspects that will stay the same and the key success factors for ensuring continued growth and success.
Other topics covered will include the best methods to grow your international work, how to prepare for the future and how to leverage use of knowledge, technology and innovation to improve client relationships and financial performance. Participants will come away with a personal and firm ‘action list’ with clear and practical outputs.
The four-day intensive course will take place from 27–30 July 2026 at King’s College London. The deadline for applications is 24 April and those interested in participating should complete a short application form.
Call for proposals for general interest sessions at 2026 Annual Conference
The IBA has issued a call for applications from those wishing to organise and run general interest sessions at the IBA 2026 Annual Conference, to be held in Copenhagen, Denmark, from 4–9 October. Such sessions will take place in addition to IBA committee events, providing practical tips and skills training designed to enhance both personal and professional development, and also further develop a firm’s practice.
Those interested in putting forward a session/workshop are invited to visit the IBA website and complete a proposal form. The deadline for proposals is 27 February 2026. All proposals will be assessed by the IBA Annual Conference Session Review Committee, who will ensure the content doesn’t duplicate that of sessions being run by the IBA’s substantive committees. Applicants will be notified of the Review Committee’s decision by the end of March.
Australia enforces social media ban for under-16s as other jurisdictions consider similar legislation
Stephen Cousins
In December, Australia became the first country to ban people under the age of 16 from using designated social media platforms. The ban is aimed at protecting youngsters from harmful content and other risks, says the Australian government – and several other jurisdictions are now considering the adoption of similar rules.
Australia’s Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act requires ‘age-restricted social media platforms’ to ensure that users aged 15 years and under can’t hold accounts.
The flexible compliance standard under the law doesn’t prescribe specific technologies to verify age, such as ID verification or biometrics. Instead, it places the onus on platforms to justify how their chosen methods constitute ‘reasonable steps’ for age verification. Platforms face fines of up to AUD 49.5m (£25m) for serious or repeated breaches. As a result, those social media platforms designated under the legislation have been taking steps to achieve compliance, for example by deactivating accounts and setting out the ways in which users can verify their age.
Other jurisdictions are planning similar clampdowns. Malaysia is formulating a policy to ban under-16s from having social media accounts, potentially from 2026. Denmark has announced a measure to ban under-15s from having access to social media, although reportedly there will be a provision to allow parents to grant their teenage children access.
The European Parliament voted in favour of a ban on social media for children under 16 – unless their parents decide otherwise – in November. If the ban is ultimately not passed by the EU, France’s President, Emmanuel Macron, has said his administration will implement similar legislation, affecting under-15s, at a national level.
‘This is a worldwide move, and when it happens as a wave through many different jurisdictions it is difficult for tech companies to deny the need to do something about the issue,’ says Simone Lahorgue Nunes, a Member of the IBA Technology Law Committee Advisory Board at the time of writing.
This is a worldwide move, and when it happens […] through many different jurisdictions it is difficult for tech companies to deny the need to do something about the issue
Simone Lahorgue Nunes
Member, IBA Technology Law Committee Advisory Board
Supporters of the ban argue it’ll protect children at risk of being exposed to uncontrollable social pressures, bullying and predators. Daisy Greenwell is a co-founder of the UK-based campaign group Smartphone Free Childhood. She says that Australia’s policy on social media use recognises ‘that children should not be the testing ground for technologies designed to maximise engagement rather than wellbeing.’
Social media platforms say they are taking the risks seriously. They have implemented various safety features to mitigate the risks of harm to youngsters. Depending upon the platform, these include offering specific types of accounts for young people, enabling individuals to block or mute other users, rolling out parental controls and establishing default privacy settings.
Opponents of the ban more generally have suggested it will push some children to visit less regulated corners of the internet and expressed concern about the potential impact on freedom of expression. While all platforms covered under the Australian legislation have said they’ll comply, some have suggested that alternatives to the ban could work more effectively in protecting minors – for example, the introduction of new rules requiring app stores to verify the age of users at the point of download.
Platforms face challenges balancing user satisfaction with compliance. The law is tech-neutral and Australia’s eSafety Commissioner will ultimately decide if platforms have met the required standard of taking ‘reasonable steps’ for age verification. This creates interpretive risk – measures considered too lenient may result in closer regulatory scrutiny or penalties, while those considered overly strict may be viewed as intrusive, also resulting in fines.
Concerns have also been raised about the technical effectiveness of age verification technologies and their implications for data privacy and security. The law allows platforms to offer government ID verification as an option, but other methods must also be made available.
An Australian government-funded, industry-run trial found that ‘age assurance can be done in Australia privately, efficiently and effectively’ but concluded that of the verification methods available, there wasn’t a ‘single ubiquitous solution that would suit all use cases,’ nor did the study find ‘solutions that were guaranteed to be effective in all deployments.’ Further, while the systems tested were found to be fairly robust in respect of cybersecurity, ‘the rapidly evolving threat environment means that these systems […] cannot be considered infallible.’
‘Every single form of age verifying technology has an error rate, which means when it gets down to the granular level – are you 16 or are you 15? – there are going to be a lot of errors,’ says Molly Buckley, an activist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which campaigns against the use of age verification systems.
Young people could also bypass verification measures by using virtual private networks (VPNs), as has been the case with access to other age-restricted websites.
According to Buckley, age verification ‘upends longstanding norms around online safety’ with children – rather than being discouraged from sharing their private personal information – required instead to supply biometric data, identity documents or other sensitive information, ‘creating honey pots of data for identity thieves, hackers or other bad actors.’
Greenwell counters this argument by highlighting that the new Australian law builds in privacy protections and ‘pushes platforms to design proportionate systems that confirm age without creating permanent identity databases or expanding surveillance.’ A ‘ringfence’ protocol within the legislation requires platforms to segregate data collected for age assurance from the rest of their business, including from the platform’s advertising algorithms.
The global regulatory community will now scrutinise the impact of Australia’s new age assurance regime. Comparisons will be made to less restrictive options such as enhanced age verification, stronger content moderation, design codes or further options for parental control.
Lahorgue Nunes, who’s also Founding Partner at Lahorgue Advogadas Associadas in Brazil, highlights here her country’s Digital Statute of the Child and Adolescent, which was enacted in September. The Statute doesn’t ban access but sets out comprehensive rules designed to protect children and adolescents online.
‘The law includes many important principles, such as the requirement to link accounts to legal guardians, regulatory oversight by the autonomous Brazilian Data Protection Authority, design and risk mitigation duties on platforms, safety by design obligations, and age verification duties across the digital chain, not just the provider,’ says Lahorgue Nunes. She adds that under the Statute, whenever platforms receive a notification of harmful content, either from a victim, their representatives, the public prosecutor’s office or a children’s rights organisation, ‘they have to take [the content] down, even without a court order.’
Header image: Monkey Business/Adobe Stock