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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT