• Home
  • News
  • Sarbanes-Oxley Governed Lawyer’s ‘Noisy Withdrawal’ in Stanford Case

Legal Ethics

Sarbanes-Oxley Governed Lawyer’s ‘Noisy Withdrawal’ in Stanford Case

Posted Feb 19, 2009 8:41 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

The Proskauer Rose lawyer who disavowed everything he had told authorities about an investment firm affiliated with billionaire Robert Allen Stanford was acting under a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Bloomberg News identified the lawyer as Thomas Sjoblom. His actions are termed a “noisy withdrawal” under a section of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that clarifies the ethical responsibilities for lawyers practicing before the Securities and Exchange Commission, the American Lawyer reports.

Sjoblom disaffirmed information he had given to investigators and withdrew from representing the Antigua affiliate of Stanford’s investment advisory firm. Days later, the SEC charged Stanford in a civil complaint with selling $8 billion in certificates of deposit based on unsubstantiated claims that the CDs had been generating double-digit annual returns.

Sarbanes-Oxley makes clear that any lawyer before the SEC may reveal confidential client information to investigators if the lawyer believes it will prevent a legal violation or help rectify losses suffered by investors, Fordham law professor Bruce Green told the American Lawyer.

Stephen Gillers of New York University School of Law told the publication that Sjoblom acted properly under the SOX regulation. "He did the right thing here," Gillers said.

Additional ABAJournal.com coverage:

FBI Agents Find Missing Billionaire Accused in $8B Fraud

SEC Looked Into Stanford CDs in 2005; Why Didn’t Feds Act Sooner in $8B Case?

Stanford Employee Says He Was Forced Out After Questioning CD Returns

Where is Billionaire Defendant, Following SEC Lawsuit?

Updated at 3:52 p.m. to include links to other coverage and on Feb. 20 to include additional links.

Comments

1.

tim
Feb 19, 2009 12:05 PM CST

Isn’t this billionare a high rolling Democrate and Obama supporter?  Why are all Obama’s friends going to jail?

Flag this comment

2.

Bill Dugan
Feb 20, 2009 6:50 AM CST

Comment removed by moderator.

Flag this comment

3.

eliot bernstein
Feb 20, 2009 7:32 AM CST

eliot bernstein / iviewit / patentgate said…
this is what i have to say to all the legal blogs and articles that are trying to paint Proskauer attorney as hero whistleblower.
—-
hmmm, i hear that the civil case names lawyers, perhaps Proskauer. You lawyers are an ill breed to try and protect Porksour’s lawyer who appears in on the scam, probably gave opinion on most of this and as the feds came in he ran away while the ship sank on investors. No one but you disgraceful lawyers say he whistleblew, most say his running sent up a red flag and then he squealed like a pig.
Lawyers are ruining the country, most of them are now criminals with law degrees or cowards to face the corruption that has disgraced the profession. I like how these blogs edit users comments, erasing 1st amendment rights, well then you dirty lawyers and your media friends helped removed habeas, you approved and used torture (bebe yoo and gonzales, etc, etc, etc…) you have raped the financial markets, you are the scum of the earth. Hope you edit this, we are watching.
For the real jiggy on Proskauer Rose see http://www.iviewit.tv
Your time is coming soon and your time will be eternal ~ Your eternal friend
Eliot Bernstein
Inventor

Crooked Law Firm sat on a wall.
Crooked Law Firm had a great fall.
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put Proskauer Rose together again.

Flag this comment

4.

Einstein
Feb 20, 2009 8:03 AM CST

Comment removed by moderator.

Flag this comment

5.

B. McLeod
Feb 20, 2009 8:09 AM CST

Aye, if it’s from your bank account.

Flag this comment

6.

Pete Clark
Feb 20, 2009 8:23 AM CST

I suggest that the administrator of this blog eliminate the entire set of comments so far and start over with this news item.  And mebbe a minimum required IQ before posting.

Flag this comment

7.

B. McLeod
Feb 20, 2009 8:44 AM CST

Pete, how high could it be set to still allow you to post?

Flag this comment

8.

Mike Essmyer
Feb 20, 2009 9:05 AM CST

In regard to Post #1 above, this “billionaire high roller” was last seen taking Texas Republican US Senator Cornyn and his wife on a junket vacation.  Do not make false accusations just to defame a President.

Flag this comment

9.

Kim
Feb 20, 2009 10:03 AM CST

Comment removed by moderator.

Flag this comment

10.

Andy the Lawyer
Feb 20, 2009 10:18 AM CST

To Tim (#1)—Because Jack Abramoff and Randy Cunningham and every convicted and imprisoned member of the Bush administration are bored with their current cellmates and need new ones.

Flag this comment

11.

DownTheMiddle
Feb 27, 2009 8:36 AM CST

Political parties and aspersions aside, read the affidavit of the FBI agent regarding the first person indicted in the Stanford criminal conspiracy (in another ABA article).  Attorney A is in for a world of pain.  It appears that Attorney A was in this mess up to his or her eyeballs.  I guess for a huge pay day some people will do and say just about anything.  I, for one, like to sleep at night.

Flag this comment

12.

JohnyLaw
Feb 28, 2009 3:28 PM CST

You don’t get a medal for doing your job.
But, you get a room in the pokey for facilitating a massive fraud. 
Pack your toothbrush and soap an a rope.

Flag this comment

13.

JohnyLaw
Feb 28, 2009 3:32 PM CST

“I like how these blogs edit users comments, erasing 1st amendment rights”
Genius, the First Amendment does NOT protect a private forum.  Your like a chef that does not how to fry an egg.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.