Marijuana Memo Raises Need for Lawyers' Involvement
Steven Cash writes: The rule of law depends on lawyers. That is why, in the wake of Attorney General Jeff Sessions' decision to rescind Obama-era policies that sidestepped the tension between federal and state laws related to marijuana, a reasonable and critical step is to ensure that lawyers can help maintain that rule of law.
January 11, 2018 at 03:40 PM
3 minute read
The rule of law depends on lawyers. That is why, in the wake of Attorney General Jeff Sessions' decision to rescind Obama-era policies that sidestepped the tension between federal and state laws related to marijuana, a reasonable and critical step is to ensure that lawyers can help maintain that rule of law.
The issue that confronts attorneys flows from this unusual tension between state and federal law. Regardless of state law, marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law, and its possession, sale or distribution remains a federal felony. Reasonable minds can, of course, disagree on whether marijuana should be illegal. Separate and apart from that public policy debate, it is very clear that the federal Controlled Substances Act (the CSA) remains the operative and supreme law of the land, and marijuana is illegal.
In general, a “lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal,” a prohibition that flows from the state ethics rules. A number of states have amended or interpreted their ethical rules to specifically allow lawyers to provide “counsel or assist a client regarding conduct expressly permitted by [state] law.” These changes were intended to permit attorneys to provide counsel to assist individuals or businesses operating within the state regulatory framework governing marijuana.
But the lawyer's obligations do not only flow from the state ethics rules. Lawyers also are, of course, subject to the criminal law. As a general matter, providing legal advice to assist somebody in committing a future crime is not only unethical, but may also constitute a criminal offense. A lawyer who, for instance, helps a money launderer set up shell companies may be joining a conspiracy to commit money laundering, and thus be subject to criminal prosecution.
In the context of marijuana, the situation is confusing. Conduct explicitly permitted by state law, and allowed by state bar ethics rules, may constitute a violation of federal criminal law. Now that the Justice Department guidance intensifies the conflict between state and federal law, it is critically important that everybody involved in state-permitted cannabis gets timely and accurate legal advice. What is needed is clear guidance on this subject to ensure that attorneys who adhere to their state ethics rules do not risk prosecution for conspiracy to violate the federal CSA.
Making this clear, and ensuring that lawyers be permitted to provide legal advice, would further a goal that both the Justice Department and those involved in state cannabis support: adherence to the rule of law. It is critical that in the present situation individuals and companies can receive competent legal advice, allowing them to understand the tension between federal and state law, and if they nevertheless determine to proceed under state law, appropriately adhere to applicable state and local law, while understanding the risks involved.
In the coming weeks, there will be increasing interest by Congress, as well as other
federal agencies and departments, in responding to the Justice Department's position. A simple first step would be for Congress to pass legislation, or the Justice Department to issue guidance, making it clear that lawyers are permitted to advise their clients in understanding the law without, themselves, facing potential criminal liability.
Steven Cash, counsel at Day Pitney in the Washington, D.C. and New York offices, is former Chief Counsel to Sen. Dianne Feinstein and former Assistant District Attorney with the New York County District Attorney's Office.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Biblical Reconciliation Between Judaism and Islam: A Lesson for Everyone, Everywhere
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Mental Health Issues Don’t Get a Holiday
- 2'It's Got to Be a Wake-Up Call:' Atlanta Attorney Hopes $16M Verdict Spurs Training Changes at Hotels
- 3FTC Bans 'Junk Fees' in Live-Event Tickets and Short-Term Lodging
- 4California Legal Awards Moving to Mid-Summer Date in 2025, Adds New Categories
- 5Law Student Sues NY Attorney Grievance Officials, Seeking Materials Over Sexual Assault Claims
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250