Slides used at the Downey Law Group LLC program at the Cheshire Inn on May 9, 2017.

1. Legal Ethics & Innovations..
Michael Downey
Downey Law Group LLC

2. 2

3. 3

4. 4
WHITE PAPER
Conflicts of Interest and the President
Background for President-Elect Trump’s January 11, 2017 Press Conference
Prepared by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP1
I. OVERVIEW
From President Washington to Vice President Rockefeller to President-Elect Trump, many of this Nation’s
leaders have been extraordinarily successful businessmen. Neither the Constitution nor federal law
prohibits the President or Vice President from owning or operating businesses independent of their official
duties, as a careful textual and historical analysis shows.
Generally speaking, federal conflict-of-interest laws prohibit “officers” or “employees” of the United States
from taking positions against the country’s interests, maintaining outside employment, receiving an
outside salary for official duties, or taking official acts that affect their personal financial interests.2
But these laws have historically not applied to the President or Vice President. As then-Assistant Attorney
General Antonin Scalia observed in an Office of Legal Counsel memorandum, the term “officer” typically
includes neither the President nor Vice President.3
And since 1989, Congress has approved this tradition
by expressly excluding the President and Vice President—along with Members of Congress and federal
judges—from most conflict-of-interest laws.4
The Office of Government Ethics has recently re-affirmed
that these conflict-of-interest laws do not apply to the President.5
Though Congress has long exempted the President and Vice President from federal conflict-of-interest

5. 5

6. 6

7. 7
School Board candidate under fire for Facebook post
Rebecca Sheehan, KSDK 7:42 PM. CST January 26, 2017
HILLSBORO, ILL. - A school board candidate filed suit against
a special education teacher and others who shared one of his
Facebook posts.
Hillsboro School Board Candidate Tom DeVore filed a libel
lawsuit in Montgomery County, Illinois, Circuit Court. He's also
requesting an injunction that would prohibit the defendants
from posting anything about him on social media.
It all started with a Facebook post published by DeVore. In the
post, he talks about a recent experience at a children’s basketball game. He says the kids
working the concession stand were having trouble giving him the proper change, and were being
rude to him.
DeVore then stated in his post, "Lord help us with the window lickers, I mean special children."
According to Devore, the three defendants named in the lawsuit, including a Hillsboro special
(Photo: Getty Images)

8. 8
46 articles
83 presentations
400+ client matters

9. 9

10. Legal Innovations
10

11. 11

12. 12

13. 13

14. 14

15. Ethics Developments
15

16. 16

17. 17
1/8/17, 9(45 PMChinese Nationals Charged With Hacking Firms to Steal M A Info | The American Lawyer
NOT FOR REPRINT
Click to Print or Select 'Print' in your browser menu to print this document.
Page printed from: The American Lawyer
Chinese Nationals Charged With Hacking
Firms to Steal M&A Info
Mark Hamblett, The Am Law Daily
December 27, 2016
Three Chinese nationals face federal charges for allegedly hacking into two major U.S. law firms in
a scheme to trade on information about imminent mergers and acquisitions.
U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of the Southern District of New York announced Tuesday that Iat
Hong, Bo Zheng and Hung Chin have been charged with infiltrating the servers of two law firms in
2014 and 2015 and accessing nonpublic information about pending deals. According to Bharara's
office, the information was used in trades that reaped roughly $4 million in illegal profits.
The indictment unsealed Tuesday does not name the law firms, which are referred to as Law Firm
1 and Law Firm 2. According to the charges, Law Firm 1 advised Intel Corp. on its 2015 acquisition
of Altera Corp. for $16.7 billion and represented a company that was in deal talks with InterMune
Inc., which sold to Roche AG in 2014 for $8.9 billion.
The second major law firm advised Pitney Bowes Inc. in the 2015 acquisition of New York-based e-
commerce company Borderfree, the indictment states.
Based on those details the two firms appear to be Weil, Gotshal & Manges and Cravath, Swaine &
Moore, firms where cyberbreaches previously were reported. Weil represented Intel in the Altera
buy and Cravath is identified in securities filings as Pitney Bowes lead deal counsel.

18. 18

19. 19

20. 20

21. 21
Search Here...
March-April 2017 Journal of The Missouri Bar Home Page (/journal/marapr2017/)
The Ethics of Client Trust Accounts: Frequently Asked QuestionsThe Ethics of Client Trust Accounts: Frequently Asked Questions
by Melinda J. Bentley[1]
Some of the most frequently asked questions of the Legal Ethics Counsel office focus on how to comply with ethical
obligations related to handling client trust accounts. Lawyers are often wary of making a misstep with their client
trust accounts, but by instituting sound accounting practices within their offices in accordance with Rules 4-1.145 –
4-1.155, lawyers should be able to readily comply with their safekeeping obligations. To assist lawyers with meeting
these obligations, this article will provide answers to some of the most frequently asked ethics questions.
Q: How do I find out if my financial institutionQ: How do I find out if my financial institution is approved to hold client trust accounts?is approved to hold client trust accounts?
A: There are two steps by which financial institutions may be approved to hold client trust accounts. First, the
financial institution must be deemed “eligible” by the Missouri Lawyer Trust Account Foundation in accordance with
the requirements of Rule 4-1.145.[2] Second, the financial institution must be “approved” by the Advisory
Committee pursuant to the regulation it has adopted, which includes overdraft reporting to the Office of Chief
Disciplinary Counsel.[3] To find out if a financial institution is approved to hold client trust accounts, you may view
the list published at www.Mo-Legal-Ethics.org (http://www.Mo-Legal-Ethics.org).
Q: What do I do when I receive a payment throughQ: What do I do when I receive a payment through an instrument that contains both earned feesan instrument that contains both earned fees
and advance payment of fees andand advance payment of fees and expenses?expenses?
A: Rule 4-1.15(a)(4) requires that receipts be deposited intact, so you cannot make a split deposit.[4] The proper
way to handle this situation is to deposit the full amount into the trust account. Once the funds have become
“good funds,” meaning the funds have actually been collected by the financial institution in which the trust account
is located,[5] you should then transfer the earned fees into your operating account within a reasonably prompt
s/Governance/Bylaws/MoBar%20Bylaws.pdf)
irectory/The_Missouri_Bar_Staff.htm)
Opinion 118 provides that the funds may be disposed of in accordance with the unclaimed property laws of
Missouri.[21]
Q: What do I do with excess funds in my trustQ: What do I do with excess funds in my trust account that were paid by a third party for theaccount that were paid by a third party for the
representation of a client?representation of a client?
A: Missouri Informal Advisory Opinion 20050041 suggests that “it is useful to have an agreement about what
happens to the funds if: (a) the representation is prematurely terminated, or (b) the representation terminates
normally, but there are funds left, or (c) the third party demands his or her money back while the representation is
ongoing.” The Rules of Professional Conduct do not address who owns excess funds in a third-party payee
relationship; however, it is important to remember that Rule 4-1.8(f) prohibits a lawyer from accepting
compensation for representing a client from someone other than the client unless the client gives informed
consent, there is no interference with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment or with the lawyer-client
relationship, and confidential information is protected in accordance with Rule 4-1.6. If two or more persons claim
an interest in those excess funds, follow Rule 4-1.15(e) and Comment [8].[22]
Q: When I am jointly representing a client withQ: When I am jointly representing a client with another attorney not in my law firm, and we have aanother attorney not in my law firm, and we have a
division of fees agreementdivision of fees agreement pursuant to Rule 4-1.5(e), may I hold the fees that are for that otherpursuant to Rule 4-1.5(e), may I hold the fees that are for that other
attorneyattorney in my trust account?in my trust account?
A: Yes, that is the proper way to hold the fees that belong to another attorney not in your law firm when you have a
division of fee agreement under Rule 4-1.5(e). For purposes of Rule 4-1.15, those are funds of a third person that
should be properly secured separately from your own funds. You have an obligation to promptly notify the lawyer
not in the law firm that you have received the funds and should promptly deliver those funds to the lawyer upon
the funds becoming good funds, so long as the funds are not in dispute.[23]
Q: I have earned fees sitting in my client trustQ: I have earned fees sitting in my client trust account. May I just pay my bills directly from thataccount. May I just pay my bills directly from that
account?account?
A: No! It is imperative that you take ownership of any earned fees sitting in your client trust account. The trust
account has the special purpose of protecting funds being held for clients or third persons in connection with a

22. 22

23. 23

24. 24

25. 25

26. Status of the Practice
26

27. 27

28. 28

29. 29

30. 30
12/27/16, 3)12 PMAre US Lawyers a Weak Link in the Fight Against Money Laundering | The American Lawyer
NOT FOR REPRINT
Click to Print or Select 'Print' in your browser menu to print this document.
Page printed from: The American Lawyer
Are US Lawyers a Weak Link in the Fight
Against Money Laundering?
Susan Beck, The Am Law Daily
December 22, 2016
Earlier this month, for the first time in 10 years, an intergovernmental organization called the
Financial Action Task Force graded the United States on its efforts to combat money laundering
and terrorist financing. The group, which includes government representatives from more than 30
countries, gave the U.S. the lowest possible score in five of the 51 categories it uses to judge
countries' efforts.
The five categories had one thing in common. They each singled out the activities of American
lawyers.
This isn't surprising. Going back to 2002, when Congress floated new rules to identify money
laundering in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, the American Bar Association has staunchly
opposed any federal legislation that would require lawyers to help identify money laundering or
terrorist financing. Banks and other financial institutions must comply with the Bank Secrecy Act,
which imposes stringent "know your customer" rules and requires that suspicious transaction be
reported to federal authorities.
U.S. lawyers are exempt from these rules, which puts the country at odds with the United Kingdom

31. 31

32. 32

33. 33

34. 34

35. 35

36. 36

37. Michael Downey
Downey Law Group LLC
(314) 961-6644
(844) 961-6644 toll free
mdowney@DowneyLawGroup.com
Thank You