Jul 24, 2008

A Question Of Ethics


On the separate Social Security Perspectives blog I have posted a copy of the decision of the California State Bar on the reinstatement petition of Weldon Ray Reeves, who is pictured to the left. You can click on each page of the decision to read it. It is spread over four posts due to technical limitations in Blogger. Let me briefly summarize the decision.
  • Mr. Reeves was a lawyer in the past, but he was disbarred in March 1996 after he pled guilty to a felony charge of aiding and abetting a false statement in a bankruptcy petition.
  • Mr. Reeves' petition for reinstatement as an attorney was denied in 2000.
  • On June 6, 2006, the Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration overturned a decision of an Administrative Law Judge that held that Mr. Reeves should be disqualified from representing Social Security claimants on the grounds that he had deceived a client, but still disqualified Mr. Reeves from representing Social Security claimants on the grounds that he lacked good character and reputation.
  • Mr. Reeves is the sole proprietor of Disability Advocates. (Note that other entities unassociated with Mr. Reeves use the same name in other parts of the country.)
  • After he was disqualified by the Social Security Administration, Mr. Reeves continued to represent Social Security claimants through the "veil" of Georgia McGreal. Other than discontinuing going to hearings himself, the disqualification hardly changed Mr. Reeves' activities in representing Social Security claimants.
  • On July 15, 2008, the California State Bar again denied Mr. Reeves' petition for reinstatement as an attorney.
There is a good deal more in the decision of the California State Bar about Mr. Reeves' activities. Much of it casts Mr. Reeves in a very bad light.

I find it distressing that this sort of thing can go on and that the Social Security Administration seems powerless to stop it. If withholding of fees for non-attorneys is to be renewed by Congress, action should be taken to address this sort of situation.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

SSA is looking at this. But the law regarding recognizing -- and sanctioning -- reps doesn't cover this situation with clarity. Can't get into the details here, but some legislative amendments clearly authorizing the Commish to not recognize and/or pay organizations headed by previously disbarred/sanctioned reps would be very helpful.

Anonymous said...

So bottom line, due you think the guy is a crook or not?