Lawyers With Cannabis Clients Face Ethical Challenges, Panel Says
The panelists were discussing ethical issues that may arise for cannabis counsel while, at the same time, Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced during his State of the State address his proposal to legalize recreational marijuana for adult use.
January 15, 2019 at 05:41 PM
4 minute read
As marijuana continues to be subject to a patchwork of laws in the United States, lawyers with clients in the cannabis industry must walk a fine line when weighing ethical considerations, attorneys from the New York State Bar Association's cannabis law committee explained on Tuesday at a panel discussion.
The panelists were discussing ethical issues that may arise for cannabis counsel while, at the same time, Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced during his State of the State address his proposal to legalize recreational marijuana for adult use.
Sara Payne of Barclay Damon in Syracuse, who serves on the committee, said the committee is not aware of any cases in which an attorney was hit for ethics violations simply because they have clients in the cannabis industry, but said that representing clients in the industry could become an ethical issue for attorneys who take part in unrelated illicit activity.
“If you're trafficking cocaine on the side and you're driving drunk while representing cannabis clients, you can bet when the DA is charging you he's going to throw that in to your ethics folks,” Payne said.
Medical marijuana is legal in 32 states, Washington, D.C., Guam and Puerto Rico. It is also legal for recreational use by adults in 10 states and D.C. The legal pot industry raked in $10 billion in 2017, according to Payne's presentation.
But even in states with legal pot, attorneys should still advise cannabis clients that it is still outlawed at the federal level, Payne said.
Attorney ethics watchdogs in states across the U.S. have adopted three general positions as to how lawyers should approach potential clients in the cannabis industry: don't do it at all, advise clients in a limited capacity or, like New York, “advise and assist.”
In states where attorneys have been advised to take the third approach, lawyers may assist cannabis clients in following the law but are not allowed to break the laws themselves.
But Payne said that where attorneys could cross the line is offering up business advice such as working on negotiations or business strategy, an undertaking that she said would be considered drug trafficking.
Attorneys should include disclosures in their engagement letters with cannabis clients to remind them of the federal prohibition and inform them that they might not have full attorney-client privilege, they are subject to getting raided by law enforcement and their attorneys may have to testify against them.
Advice about the current state of the law should be conveyed not only to “plant-touching” clients such as cannabis manufacturers and distributors, but also to ancillary parties such as bankers and landlords. Investors in the cannabis industry, for instance, should be warned that they could lose their money.
In 2014, after New York passed its medical marijuana law, the State Bar issued an ethics opinion that is tied to the medical marijuana regime, stating that attorneys can advise clients on medical marijuana laws and emphasizing that it's still illegal on the federal level.
The State Bar's cannabis law committee is developing a new ethics opinion that would be based on legalized marijuana in New York.
“It's going to create a lot more problems than it will solve if we don't have an updated ethics opinion,” said Robert Volynsky of Sichenzia Ross Ference, who also took part in the panel.
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 AllTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
From ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readTrump Picks Personal Criminal Defense Lawyers for Solicitor General, Deputy Attorney General
Trending Stories
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