Below is a letter I have received from an attorney representing Charlie Binder. You can click on each thumbnail to see it full size.
Binder is objecting to my post Proposed Rules Of Conduct For Appointed Representatives where I wrote that "This [proposal regulation] is just overkill. I'm not Eric Conn or Charlie Binder. Don't treat me like them. I don't deserve it." Binder feels that I have accused him of certain conduct that the proposal would ban and that I am associating him with the allegedly criminal behavior of Eric Conn.
I have no problem saying that I have no knowledge that Charlie Binder or anyone else at Binder and Binder has done anything illegal and that I don't know that this proposal would have any more effect upon Binder and Binder than it would have on my firm. It would not have taken a three page letter from Binder's attorney to get me to say this. A simple e-mail from Binder himself would have been enough.
My point in using the names of Eric Conn and Charlie Binder was not to say that their behavior has been the same or similar. My point was to express my concern that each, for different reasons, has generated negative attitudes towards Social Security attorneys on the part of upper Social Security management. I am concerned that these negative attitudes are behind recent Social Security regulatory actions. The issues at Binder and Binder, while not criminal, are magnified in importance by the prominence of that entity. I thought about going through the issues at Binder and Binder but decided there was no point. Almost all my readers already know enough about Binder and Binder to have their own opinions.
The ironic thing is that Charlie Binder doesn't like to be lumped together with Eric Conn. I don't like being lumped together with either Conn or Binder.