Code of Conduct

Every Fellow, alumnus in the alumni year, faculty member, mentor, Selection Committee member, staff member, partner representative and guest participating in any Fellowship or Dialogue activity, online or in person, agrees to this Code as a condition of taking part.

• Treat every participant with respect, regardless of jurisdiction, sector, seniority, gender, disability, religion, ethnicity or first language.
• Argue with the position, not the person. Robust disagreement is expected; contempt is not.
• Turn up prepared and contribute. A cohort seat is a scarce, funded resource.
• Do your own work. Attribute the work of others, including where you have used AI assistance.
• Declare conflicts of interest before they become a problem, not after.
• Keep confidential material confidential, including client, employer and supervisory information.
• Follow the law of your jurisdiction and the professional obligations of your role.

• Harassment, including sexual harassment, in any channel: sessions, chat, email or private message.
• Discrimination or demeaning conduct on any protected characteristic.
• Bullying, intimidation, or retaliation against anyone who raises a concern.
• Plagiarism, fabricated data, undisclosed ghost-writing, or misrepresentation of credentials.
• Soliciting or offering improper advantage from a public official, or trading on a supervisory relationship.
• Recording, screenshotting or publishing a closed session without written permission.
• Using the cohort, the Dialogue or the Legum name to market a product without disclosure and consent.

Dialogue sessions and designated cohort sessions run under Chatham House Rule: participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of any speaker, nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. This extends to social media, internal memos and press comment. Where a session is on the record, we say so in advance and in writing.

Faculty, mentors and Selection Committee members must disclose commercial, employment, advisory or familial relationships that could reasonably be seen to affect their judgement. Anyone with a declared conflict is recused from decisions affecting the person or organisation concerned. Disclosed early, almost nothing is disqualifying; concealed, almost anything is.

Mentorship is a structured professional relationship. Mentors must not seek a personal, romantic or financial relationship with a Fellow they are matched with, and must not recruit a mentee into their own organisation without disclosure to the Mentorship Committee. Concerns about the welfare or safety of any participant are treated as urgent.

• Route one: the Programme Office, for anything operational or where informal resolution is realistic.
• Route two: the Ethics Committee, which has an independent chair and external members and reports to the Advisory Board rather than to programme management.
• Anonymous reports are accepted and investigated as far as the information allows.
• Reports involving the Programme Director or Academic Director go directly to the Ethics Committee chair.

Retaliation against a person who raises a concern in good faith is itself a breach of this Code and is treated as a serious one.

The Programme Office acknowledges a report within 3 working days. Where a formal investigation is opened, both the reporting and responding party are told the scope, may submit written statements, and may be accompanied to any meeting. Investigations conclude within 30 working days unless the parties are told in writing why more time is needed. Findings are made on the balance of probabilities.

• A documented informal resolution or written note of guidance.
• A formal written warning recorded on file.
• Withdrawal of specific privileges: Dialogue attendance, mentorship, Talent Pool access or publication rights.
• Suspension from the cohort pending investigation.
• Termination of the Fellowship, faculty appointment, mentorship or partnership, with fees treated under the refund terms.
• Revocation of certification where an integrity finding goes to the validity of the award.

Any sanctioned party may appeal in writing within 10 working days on the grounds of procedural unfairness, new evidence, or disproportionate sanction. Appeals are heard by the Ethics Committee, excluding anyone involved in the original decision. The Ethics Committee decision is final.