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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT