Deepcapture - "Well, It's Nice She Landed On Her Feet"

[Parsad]

Patrick Byrne wrote a terrific column on former SEC director of enforcement Linda Thomsen, who has now gone back to her old law firm which defends those under SEC investigations.  Don't you just love how lawyers can so easily move ethical boundaries to fit their needs!  Cheers!

 

http://www.deepcapture.com/

[Partner24]

The employment boundaries between SEC enforcement staff and the private sector are not wide enough. To paraphrase:

 

Whose bread I'll eat (eventually) - His song I sing.

[dual_bid]

Does he think that she now has to be unemployed for the rest of her life, or leave her profession?

Is there some kind of a junkyard where you put public servants following their public duty?

[Parsad]

Does he think that she now has to be unemployed for the rest of her life, or leave her profession?

Is there some kind of a junkyard where you put public servants following their public duty?

 

No, but you would think that someone who prosecuted for the SEC for 10 years, would not be going out there to defend the same type of people she used to investigate.  Cheers!

[Partner24]

The SEC is not doing is job enough to solve the naked short selling problem. I don't have the link, but I remember having red a recent report from a SEC executive who was saying that the enforcement departement was not handling the complaints about naked short selling appropriately (not to say that they were nearly not doing anything).

 

The actual model doesn't work. It is not sufficient enough. Part of that problem might due to the "hoping for a better job and salary" factor. If a police officer was hoping that he would eventually get a better job working at the people he actually have the task to investigate, that would create a potential problem.

 

It is probably not the only problem, but it's been years that the SEC is aware of that naked short selling issue and it is not agressive enough with it. Something has to change.

[dual_bid]

defend the same type of people

 

That's her field of legal skill, and besides, she's restricted by law from touching specific matters she dealt with during her incumbency.

Would you like your fund's legal advisor to come from the legal arm of a public health department?

 

I've nothing against Byrne's accusations of her character or skill, nor against your support, but to demand that she can not use her experties, becuase of some fallacious "ethical boundries", is in itself not very ethical.

 

p.s. I'm a practicing private laywer.

[Parsad]

That's her field of legal skill, and besides, she's restricted by law from touching specific matters she dealt with during her incumbency.

Would you like your fund's legal advisor to come from the legal arm of a public health department?

 

She's restricted from dealing with specific matters she dealt with, but that does not preclude her from defending other parties under SEC investigation.

 

I think Byrne's point wasn't necessarily her remaining within her legal field, but that Markopoulos handed them a file on Madoff, including Thomsen.  They chose not to pursue it.  She, along with Cox and a number of other directors, completely missed the largest fraud in U.S. history.  Perhaps the legal arm of a public health department could have done better!  ;D  Cheers! 

 

[dual_bid]

that does not preclude her from defending other parties under SEC investigation

 

You're only repeating my words.

 

The point is that a public servant violates no ethical boundries as long as he/she doesn't deal with the same persons he/she dealt with on the "other side". To claim otherwise is hypocritical and violates his/her rights of self-employment. In certain countries it is even permitted to deal with the same matters or entities a public servant dealt with during his incumbncy, after a year or so from his/her leave.

 

As for you second point - perhaps it wasn't Byrne's main point, but it was yours.

[Santayana]

that does not preclude her from defending other parties under SEC investigation

 

You're only repeating my words.

 

The point is that a public servant violates no ethical boundries as long as he/she doesn't deal with the same persons he/she dealt with on the "other side". To claim otherwise is hypocritical and violates his/her rights of self-employment. In certain countries it is even permitted to deal with the same matters or entities a public servant dealt with during his incumbncy, after a year or so from his/her leave.

 

As for you second point - perhaps it wasn't Byrne's main point, but it was yours.

 

It may not violate legal boundaries, but I disagree that there is not a problem with the ethics.      Just because you are allowed to do something does not mean it is right.    And it's not hypocritical to say so unless I were doing the same thing myself.   

[Parsad]

You're only repeating my words.

 

Well, actually I wasn't.  I believe this is what you said:

 

That's her field of legal skill, and besides, she's restricted by law from touching specific matters she dealt with during her incumbency.

 

My comments related to her defending those under SEC investigation, not just cases she dealt with.

 

The point is that a public servant violates no ethical boundries as long as he/she doesn't deal with the same persons he/she dealt with on the "other side". To claim otherwise is hypocritical and violates his/her rights of self-employment. In certain countries it is even permitted to deal with the same matters or entities a public servant dealt with during his incumbncy, after a year or so from his/her leave.

 

Just because something is permitted, doesn't mean it's averse of any moral quandry.  Why are audit firms prevented from directly owning shares of companies they deal with, but attorneys are not?  Isn't it the same thing?  The moral and ethical dilemma is perversely obvious, yet it is permitted.

 

As for you second point - perhaps it wasn't Byrne's main point, but it was yours.

 

Again, I don't think your reading the actual subject matter before posting.  This is a direct quote from Byrne's article:

 

That would be the same Linda Thomsen who, for the entire 14 year duration of her service in the Enforcement Division of the SEC (the last four as Director), missed the $67-billion-and-counting walking Ponzi scheme/human brown stain known as Bernie Madoff, though concerned citizen Harry Markopolis not only did the work for the Enforcement Division, he all but spray-painted his findings on the lovely Italian marble of the SEC’s posh new DC headquarters.