Complex Marijuana Laws Leave Lawyers in Legal Limbo
The limbo where "legal" cannabis exists is keeping many of the country's best lawyers and law firms from representing any business that in any way receives income from cannabis sales, no matter how tenuous.
March 05, 2020 at 11:00 AM
5 minute read
In few places are lawyers more necessary or more helpful than in emerging industries where the rules are made up as the industry grows up. Few industries today need lawyers—and good lawyers—more than the growing cannabis industry.
Marijuana is now legal in some form in 33 states and Washington, D.C., each with its own complex and evolving set of regulatory and tax regimes. Navigating these laws and regulations, and knowing when and how to challenge them in order to help clarify and define the law, requires lawyers skilled in advising their cannabis-industry clients on the requirements of law at all levels. States that have passed such laws and regulations are counting on skilled attorneys to make these complex regimes work in practice. Without lawyers, they are unlikely to accomplish the goal of ensuring a safe, well-supervised, industry.
But, "legal" is a relative term. Marijuana is still illegal under federal law, which supersedes contrary state and local laws. This means that those acting "legally" in states like Colorado, Connecticut or California—which allow people to grow, sell and consume marijuana—who are working in or benefiting from the industry are likely unindicted felons. Yes, the grandma growing pot in her backyard to treat her arthritis, the veteran who smokes weed every day to help his PTSD, the electrician who wires a dispensary, the banker who holds a growers cash, and the cashier at a dispensary are criminals just like the dude on the corner selling blunts. And of course, the lawyer assisting a client to comply with state law and regulation.
The limbo where "legal" cannabis exists is keeping many of the country's best lawyers and law firms from representing any business that in any way receives income from cannabis sales, no matter how tenuous. Why? Because good lawyers want to abide by the law, and the law here is clear: If a lawyer helps someone in the cannabis industry and receives money for that help, he or she is aiding and abetting a federal crime.
Obviously, this is not ideal, particularly for the clients at all levels who need help understanding their rights and the law—from the entrepreneur looking to enter the business to the janitor seeking to understand his rights as an employee. Nor is it good for society as a whole, where lawyers help companies comply with regulations and laws meant to protect the health and safety of all Americans. It strikes at the heart of the concept of rule of law, and the special role of the legal profession.
Lest one think this just affects "hippies" in San Francisco, Seattle and Denver, it's important to remember that cannabis is "legal" in the reddest of red states—including Utah, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Making sure lawyers can help clients in the industry is one of those rare problems where both right and left agree—it should be solved and Congress can act in a bipartisan fashion to do so.
Recently, the American Bar Association, at their biannual House of Delegates meeting, voted by acclamation to endorse a resolution urging "Congress to enact legislation to clarify and explicitly ensure that it does not constitute a violation of federal law for lawyers, acting in accord with state, territorial, and tribal ethical rules on lawyers' professional conduct, to provide legal advice and services to clients regarding matters involving marijuana-related activities that are in compliance with state, territorial, and tribal law.
The ABA also passed a resolution urging Congress to provide banking facilities for the state-legalized marijuana industry, in the form of the SAFE Banking Act or similar legislation. The House recently passed the SAFE Banking Act, intended to address an analogous conflict facing banks and credit unions, which is now awaiting a hearing in the Senate and may very well pass before the end of the session. Congress should act expeditiously to introduce and pass a companion legislating making clear that providing legal services in states that have made cannabis legal shall not be a violation of federal laws criminalizing cannabis, most notable the Controlled Substances Act.
Whether we like it or not, there is a large and growing cannabis industry, operating under complex and critical state law and regulation. We should all agree that we want this activity to follow those state laws, and that requires good (and lawful) legal advice. It will make us all safer and more secure. Congress needs to act.
Steven Cash is counsel at Day Pitney and co-chairs the firm's regulated substances practice group.
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
© 2025 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 Time for Action: Attorneys Must Answer MLK's Call to Defend Bar Associations and Stand for DEI Initiatives in 2025
4 minute readThe Public Is Best Served by an Ethics Commission That Is Not Dominated by the People It Oversees
4 minute readThe Crisis of Incarcerated Transgender People: A Call to Action for the Judiciary, Prosecutors, and Defense Counsel
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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