Genetos Lane & Buitendorp LLP is a Northwestern Indiana law firm based in Merrillville, Indiana. We have a regional presence representing customers throughout the state of Indiana and parts of Illinois. Founded in 2010, our team of lawyers brings a wealth of knowledge and 89 years of combined experience. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC or “the Commission”) issued a rule that went into effect on May 23, 2003, requiring “practicing attorneys” (attorneys) to comply with the GLBA. The American Bar Association (ABA) asked the FTC to grant a GLBA exemption to lawyers, but the FTC said it was not within the Commission`s authority under the GLBA. As a result, the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) and the ABA filed a complaint against the FTC, alleging that the Commission`s assessment that the GLBA extended to lawyers was outside the FTC`s statutory powers. New York State Bar Association v Federal Trade Commission, 276 F Supp 2D 110 (DC Cir 2004). In addition, the NYSBA and ABA claimed that the commission`s decision to hire attorneys and the refusal to properly consider exemption requests constituted arbitrary and capricious actions on the part of the agency. The ABA and NYSBA complaints were filed under the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows courts to overturn the agency`s actions if the actions are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of power, or otherwise inconsistent with [the law].” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) or if the Agency acted “beyond or without lawful jurisdiction, authority, or limitation.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).
With respect to the first point of analysis (legislative clarity), the Court noted that the purpose of the GLBA was simple, although the term “financial institution” was not clear: “The interpretation of the term `financial institution` as used in law is [not simple].” The court considered the “legislative text, structure, purpose and history” Citizens Coal Council v Norton, 330 F3d 478, 481 (DC Cir 2003) (cited Pharm. Research & Mfrs. by Am. v Thompson, 251 F3d 219, 224 (DC Cir 2001)) to determine whether Congress had actually ruled on this topic. 1.6. (a) A lawyer shall not disclose information about the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is implily authorized to make the representation, or the disclosure is permitted under clause (b). 1210.1. Any attorney with an office in New York State must ensure that a statement of client rights is published in that office in a manner visible to his or her clients in the form specified below.
Lawyers in law firms that provide legal services free of charge may remove the fee provisions from the declaration. Financial institutions covered by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act must inform their customers of their information-sharing practices and explain to customers their right to “opt-out” if they do not want their information to be shared with certain third parties. Does your company comply with the requirements of the data protection policy? 5.4. (d) A lawyer may not practice with or in the form of a corporation or professional association to practice law for profit if: The FTC`s safeguard rule requires relevant companies to develop, implement, and maintain an information security program that includes administrative safeguards. technical and physical techniques to protect customer information. Are you up to date with what the revised article requires? Therefore, the court concluded that the GLBA should not apply to lawyers, as it makes no sense for Congress to intentionally enact redundant legislation. In a rather forceful statement, the court concluded that Congress did not intend for the GLBA to extend to lawyers: “[This] court states. that Congress would change a system of regulation that has always been under the authority of the states, without giving any indication that the newly enacted legislation would venture into this area. Congress` delegation of the FTC`s power to regulate the ethical conduct of lawyers in such a subtle manner in the face of about two hundred years of exclusive government regulation would be, in the words of Justice Scalia, [like hiding an elephant in a mousepiece]. Whitman v American Trucking Associations, Inc., 531 US 457, 468, 121 S Ct 903, 149 LEd2d 1 (S Ct 2001). GLBA Title V (Title V), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801-6809, provides that “financial institutions” (which the law refers to primarily as banks and similar organizations) must inform their customers of the institution`s policies regarding confidentiality and disclosure of non-public personal information to third parties at the time of establishing a business relationship and again annually.
See 15 U.S.C. § 6803. Title V also offers consumers the option to opt out of sharing information with these third parties. See 15 U.S.C. § 6802(b). However, New York State goes even further. The court noted that New York State requires attorneys to make a disclosure equivalent to that required by GLBA to their clients. 22 NYCRR 1210.1 (Publication of Customer Bill of Rights): 5.4. (b) A lawyer may not enter into a partnership with a non-lawyer if one of the partnerships consists of the practice of law. With Genetos Lane & Buitendorp LLP, you will feel comfortable, safe and secure. Contact us today. We look forward to hearing from you! The Court used the test set out in Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 US 837, 104 S Ct 2778, 81 LEd2d 694 (S Ct 1984). Chevron postulates that, while courts should show some respect for the findings of an administrative body, it is necessary to consider “whether Congress has ruled directly on the exact question in question”467 US to 842 because the court and the body must act in accordance with the clear will of Congress. If it is determined that Congress did not address the issue at issue, the court must determine whether the agency`s “response is based on a legal interpretation of the law.” ID at 843. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires financial institutions – companies that offer financial products or services to consumers such as loans, financial or investment advice, or insurance – to explain their information-sharing practices to their customers and protect sensitive data. But should a rule requiring “financial institutions” to disclose their policies and activities also apply to lawyers working in areas involving financial transactions such as insurance, taxes or real estate? This leads to deeper questions: What is the scope of a lawyer`s work? While a lawyer`s work touches on a variety of areas, how far does it really go in those other areas? This article will discuss a recent attempt by the Federal Trade Commission to extend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to lawyers practicing lawyers. The court dismissed the FTC`s requests under FRCP 12(b)(6) to dismiss the NYSBA and ABA claims. Instead, the court issued a declaratory judgment in favor of the NYSBA and ABA. At the request of the ABA, the commission issued a letter stating that it would “not take enforcement action or investigate practicing lawyers” under Title V of the GLBA unless the district court`s decision was overturned. The FTC said the “plain language” of the term “financial institution” proved that Congress intended the GLBA to apply to lawyers involved in real estate settlement, tax planning or tax preparation services. The Court disagreed, stating that the wording referred specifically to a “financial institution” and that lawyers could not be viewed in this way, primarily because lawyers could not be considered institutions: “Even if the broadest possible interpretation of the dictionary definitions of `institution` is applied,” it would be a distortion for the Court to conclude, for example: that unincorporated individual practitioners are covered by these definitions.
New York State, 276 F Supp 2d to 117. The Court concluded that Parliament probably intended lawyers not to be included in the penumbra of the Act in light of the provisions at issue: “No, lawyers not only appear to be outside the definition of `institutions` as defined in the GLBA, but the practice of law does not appear to be a financial activity within the meaning of the BHCA and Regulation Y.” New York State, 276 F Supp 2d to 118. Illinois has taken similar actions to those of the New York Bar Association. See ILCS S Ct Rules of Prof.Conduct, RPC Rule 5.4 (dealing with non-lawyers); ILCS S Ct Code of Conduct, RPC Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information). Indiana also has a set of professional codes of conduct that protect the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship. See ST PRC Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information). Wisconsin also has such rules for lawyers. Wisconsin`s rules are “designed according to [ABA] rules.” Piaskoski & Assoc. v. Ricciardi, 2004 WL 1534151 (Wis App ct 2004); WI ST RPC SCR 20:1.6 (confidentiality of information); WI ST RPCSCR 20:2.3 (Disclosure of Information to Third Parties).
With a faster, cheaper and more convenient way to transfer information, and with businesses entering into a wider variety of business activities than ever before, consumers have a very high interest in knowing who has access to their personal data. To put this hypothetically in law school terms, is it reasonable for a MegaPriceMart to receive information about Steve as part of a legitimate business relationship, but then for MegaPriceMart to share that information with MegaSavingsMart, MegaDiscountMart or another independent third party without Steve`s consent? Most consumers would agree that the answer is no.