More On Supreme Court Ethics

      Because an article about Supreme Court ethics issues I quoted mentioned a gift offered by a Social Security claimant to a federal judge, I posted about it here. The problem isn't limited to Justice Thomas but he is the prime offender because of his acceptance of gifts and lavish vacations from those interested in the work of the Court.

     I thought I was mostly writing for other attorneys who knew a little about judicial ethics but many of the comments made here were along the lines of “Well, you can’t prove Justice Thomas changed his vote because of what he received so there’s no problem.” Let me clue in the non-attorneys. There is a code of conduct for federal judges. Canon 2 of those rules is titled “A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities.” I’m sure that just about every state judiciary has the same rule. I don’t think you can reasonably argue that there’s no appearance of impropriety in Justice Thomas’ conduct. So why hasn’t this story blown up even more than it has? The code of conduct for federal judges doesn’t apply to Supreme Court justices. There is no code of conduct for Supreme Court justices.

     The lack of a code of conduct for Supreme Court justices is shocking. Even without a rule in place, Thomas’ conduct is shocking.

Ethical?

     Harry Gross, the Personal Finance Columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer, received a question from a reader who asks if it is ethical for his wife to take an early retirement buyout from her employer after being approved for Social Security disability benefits. Gross' response:

That's a tough one. You have an ethical as well as a financial dilemma. There are several choices. You could repay S.S. for the money she received and withdraw the disability request. She would then request the benefit in a new application after she took the buyout. She could keep the S.S. money and accept the buyout. This carries the financial risk of being discovered by either S.S. or her employer, and is an ethical lapse. She could forget the buyout with no repercussions. It is obvious to me that she cannot ethically accept both amounts. The buyout seems to be very substantial, so that leaves us with returning the S.S. money, taking the buyout, and reapplying for the disability at some later date. Good luck!

     No, Mr. Gross, this isn't a tough one. You should have called someone at Social Security before answering this question. Taking the buyout as well as Social Security disability benefits is perfectly legal. Some things that are perfectly legal are unethical but this doesn't seem like one to me. I don't think it's even close.

Two Diverse Documents

     Over the years, hell, decades, I have accumulated a collection of documents pertaining to Social Security. From time to time I notice one that might be of interest to other people. Here are a couple of very different documents that I have uploaded to Scribd.

• An American Medical Association Ethics Opinion stating that it is unethical to withhold medical records for non-payment of medical bills. Note that this PDF starts out as if it just applies to North Carolina but keep going. It's national. This issue comes up from time to time in representing Social Security disability claimants.
• The Comptroller General's 1981 report that provided justification for throwing hundreds of thousands of people off Social Security disability benefits. I heard rumors at the time that some person or persons at Social Security angled to get the Comptroller General to write this report  Regardless, this document was a major factor leading to policies and practices that created the biggest crisis that Social Security has ever faced.

Ethics Complaint Concerning Attorneys Working For Non-Attorney Group

     I have received an anonymous report of an anonymous attorney ethics complaint filed with a state bar against some named attorneys who represent Social Security claimants in the employment of a non-attorney outfit. Representing clients as an attorney as an employee of a non-attorney is, in my understanding, itself a violation of attorney ethics rules. The complaint also alleges that the non-attorney group engages in practices which are considered unethical by attorneys. I will not give more details about an anonymous complaint.

     The complaint is interesting but I think it would be investigated more thoroughly if had not been filed anonymously. I know that Social Security has told its Administrative Law Judges not to file ethics complaints against attorneys which could explain why this is being filed anonymously but there is a detail, which I'm not to reveal here, concerning the material I received which suggests that it was not filed by any Social Security employee.

     There are many, many newly minted attorneys who are desperately seeking employment.  I feel for them but if you are representing Social Security claimants in the employment of a non-attorney group, you had better think about your situation from a legal ethics point of view. This is from the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, which has its counterparts in every other state:

A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a professional corporation or association authorized to practice law for a profit, if:

     (1) a nonlawyer owns any interest therein, except that a fiduciary representative of the estate of a lawyer may hold the stock or interest of the lawyer for a reasonable time during administration; or

     (2) a nonlawyer has the right to direct or control the professional judgment of a lawyer.