Why Does the SEC Hate Lawyers and Will the Bitterness Ever Go Away: A Review of the Reasons for the Current State of this Relationship and a Proposed Path Forward

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) and its staff (“Staff”) have brought numerous actions against lawyers in a variety of contexts over the last several years. These enforcement actions have arguably prevented zealous advocacy as well as potentially leaving lawyers reluctant to make certain arguments on behalf of their clients so as to avoid potential disciplinary actions against them. While it is important for the Commission and its Staff to ensure that lawyers do not engage in violative conduct, this Article notes that the SEC and its Staff’s actions should be limited to only those occasions where the conduct is notorious and obvious. To avoid unwarranted interference in the right to counsel, this Article argues, at the very least, that the SEC should instead of bringing circumspect actions: (1) clarify the SEC’s approach to its use of Rule 102(e); (2) make mandatory referrals to state bar associations; and (3) create an independent board to review potential SEC actions against lawyers to ensure the good faith nature of the proposed action

THE CRIMINAL, REGULATORY, AND CIVIL ISSUES SURROUNDING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND CYBERSECURITY

Cyber-attacks have affected all organizations and individual consumers. Dissemination of relevant information and attention to strong information security practices is an important tool in fighting this cyber “pandemic.” Additionally, the legal and regulatory liability companies face from cyber-attacks as well as general strategies and practical solutions companies may implement to protect against cyber-intrusions and respond effectively in the event of an attack are considered. There are many iterations of cyber-crime, and we address the various methods cybercriminals use and the many ways cyber-attacks can take place, as well as the entities and victims affected. Moreover, the legal liability and regulatory oversight these entities face is a critical factor in addressing strategies and solutions, including both preemptive and response-oriented measures companies must take to combat cyber-crime. Coupled with this very active problem is the present nadir in the congressional debate and the proposed solutions. Thus, this Article suggests a comprehensive set of proposals where, if applied, companies may fortify their abilities to ward off cyber-threats and better ensure that consumers’ personal information stays protected. Finally, these proposals would incentivize prompt cybersecurity responses and ensure adequate protection of company and consumer information

Why Does the SEC Hate Lawyers and Will the Bitterness Ever Go Away: A Review of the Reasons for the Current State of this Relationship and a Proposed Path Forward

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) and its staff (“Staff”) have brought numerous actions against lawyers in a variety of contexts over the last several years. These enforcement actions have arguably prevented zealous advocacy as well as potentially leaving lawyers reluctant to make certain arguments on behalf of their clients so as to avoid potential disciplinary actions against them. While it is important for the Commission and its Staff to ensure that lawyers do not engage in violative conduct, this Article notes that the SEC and its Staff’s actions should be limited to only those occasions where the conduct is notorious and obvious. To avoid unwarranted interference in the right to counsel, this Article argues, at the very least, that the SEC should instead of bringing circumspect actions: (1) clarify the SEC’s approach to its use of Rule 102(e); (2) make mandatory referrals to state bar associations; and (3) create an independent board to review potential SEC actions against lawyers to ensure the good faith nature of the proposed action