ILNews

IBA: Lawyers Exempted from Red Flags Rule

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Following aggressive advocacy by organized bar associations around the country, the end is in sight regarding how the Federal Trade Commission should apply the “Red Flags Rule.”  The U.S. Senate voted last week to clarify the rule so that lawyers are clearly not included.

At issue was whether lawyers would be considered “creditors” under the so-called FTC’s Red Flags Rule, and would thus be required to develop programs identifying, detecting, and responding to the warning signs (“red flags”) of identity theft.

On Aug. 27, 2009, the American Bar Association filed suit against the FTC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On Oct. 29, 2009, the ABA’s motion for summary judgment for declaratory and injunctive relief from the Rule’s application to lawyers was granted. On Dec. 1, 2009, Judge Reggie Walton issued his full opinion in support of the ABA’s motion, the principal arguments of which are supported by the state and local bar amici.

The amicus curiae brief stated that adhering to the Rule, if it had gone into effect as applicable to lawyers, would have been particularly detrimental to small firms and solo practitioners, “The burden to create such a plan will fall disproportionately upon small law firms and solo practitioner lawyers in this country who represent the great majority of clients and whose time and resources are already spent serving the needs of their clients.”

The state and local bars also emphasized the historical regulation at the state level of lawyer conduct and the “sacrosanct confidentiality of client financial information.”

At press time action by the U.S. House of Representatives was pending.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT