…and do what you’re told. We wouldn’t have accused you if you weren’t guilty.
The SEC’s Director of the Division of Enforcement, Gurbir Grewal, doesn’t like it when lawyers defending their clients from SEC accusations get too much in his way.
The SEC also is seeing instances where lawyers repeatedly interrupt witness testimony to lodge frivolous objections….
Of course, it’s Grewal’s definition of frivolous. If he were serious, he’d be in court getting the frivolity sanctioned. And this:
In some instances, lawyers are representing companies and individuals in cases where they have a conflict of interest[.]
If that were true, he’d be objecting in court. Where are his objections?
And some lawyers are asserting legal privilege to shield documents from the eyes of SEC staff in cases where that privilege doesn’t apply[.]
Again, that’s Grewal’s position. And he asserts it as if, because he’s asserted it, it must be so.
Mr Grewal said he had recently learned about an entity with billions of dollars in assets that produced a mere 200 documents in a six-month period, after being served with a request for customer account and trading data.
Grewal is being disingenuous on two counts with this bellyache. One is that he’s been the Enforcement Director for nearly a year; how is it that he’s only just “recently” learning of this situation? Is he in charge, or isn’t he? If he is, does he read his staff’s input, or doesn’t he?
The other count is his beef that this represents an accused company’s delaying tactic. If he didn’t like it the slow production, why did he allow it to persist for so long? Why wasn’t he trying to force the pace—in court if necessary?
Grewal gave the SEC’s game away with these, as cited by the WSJ:
…[he] called on lawyers to work more cooperatively with the agency….
Lawyers who do cooperate in a genuine way with the SEC are better positioned to win credit for their clients in the form of a more lenient resolution of the agency’s investigation