Harvard Legal Ethics blogger gets it wrong

Is it not surprising that the Harvard ethics blogger is out of touch?

Look at what the blogger claims [Emphasis added]:

Constant's pations recommends federalization of legal licensing and discipline. That won't ever happen, given the many fiefdoms involved,and it might make things worse. Let's start vigorously enforcing the rules already in place. Ref

The error?

Federal level oversight exists

There are already Federal rules governing attorney conduct.

Feeling good about the "legal ethics perspective" of the great Harvard Law blogger? I'm not. I raise caution!

It's not a hypothetical

So, when they say, "It will never happen" ... beware! They might actually not know the securities laws that already govern the fiduciaries.

No confidence violations will be sanctioned

Whether the Legislature in it's "divine wisdom" chooses to actually promulgate statutes, standards, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure there are meaningful consequences on attorneys for failing to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the Securities Acts is another matter.

Federal level statutes required to impose consequences for failing to enforce the clearly promulgated federal-level standards of conduct on attorneys

Will Congress have to pass legislation to impose consequences for failing to enforce the existing Federal-level discipline system on attorneys?

No reason to expect Congress to pass legislation putting teeth in the very vultures that provide PAC-funding.

The ineffectual state-level discipline system continues

Let's continue the illusion that there is a meaningful federal-system in place to regulate the securities; and if anyone wants to ask questions about "regulation attorneys," let's continue to defer back to the ineffectual states-level auditors and attorney generals.

Summation

Fiduciaries like attorneys face meaningless consequences at the state and federal level. Even though there are clearly promulgated federal level sanctions on attorney's the misconduct continues.

How many lawyers opined on those offshore Enron accounts; and how many indictments issued against Enron despite the federal-level sanctions on attorneys?

One would think, the wake of the 1990s abuses, that these clearly promulgated statutes would act as a deterrent to the attorneys in spewing forth legal advice contrary to the interests of capital preservation and formation.

But, no!

Yet, I'm sure we'll hear plenty of excuses to explain "why this isn't a problem." The denials and "ostriches head in the sand" should give all investors pause:

Buyer beware!

The securities laws remain ineffectively enforced; and current federal-level sanctions on attorneys is meaningless to ensure private capital is adequately protected or the rights and interests of private investors are adequately safeguarded.

The US markets and legal system remain a land mine, in need of major reform, and an unreliable system to expose capital.

What's worse, a legal system that believes it is not federally regulated [when it is]; or a legal-ethics blogger expert who is more out of touch with the clearly promulgated federal statutes that remain unenforced?

In order to fix the problem, the "experts" need to know there is a problem.

Houston, we have a problem...and the "experts" are still getting it miserably wrong.

Buyer beware!