PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) -- The State Bar of South Dakota ethics committee says a South Dakota lawyer may

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

Source: KELO TV (CBS) Sioux Falls, South Dakota

PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) — The State Bar of South Dakota ethics committee says a South Dakota lawyer may not ethically provide legal services to a client engaged in marijuana activities when sale of marijuana is legal in South Dakota but prohibited by federal law.



“Consequently, Lawyer may not ethically provide legal services to assist a client in establishing,
licensing, or otherwise operating a marijuana business. Lawyer may only advise a client
considering this course of action about the potential legal consequences of doing so, under either
state or federal law, or assist the client in making a good faith effort to determine the validity,
scope, meaning, or application of the relevant state and federal law.”

The opinion adds a further twist to the legal fight already underway in state circuit court over the validity of Amendment A that South Dakota voters approved in the November 3 statewide election. The constitutional amendment would legalize recreational marijuana in South Dakota for persons age 21 and older and would impose a 15% excise tax on sales.



The State Bar has a disciplinary board. From its website: “Discipline may range from a private reprimand by the board, public censure, suspension from practice for a specified time, placement on probation, to disbarment by the Supreme Court.”



Read more: https://www.keloland.com/news/capitol-news-bureau/south-dakota-lawyers-may-not-serve-s-d-pot-businesses-while-sale-remains-a-federal-crime/

---

I am not sure what to make of this development, hence my posting here for some insight from those far more educated and experienced in these matters than I am.

As mentioned in the citations of the article above, Rapid City law enforcement and State Highway Patrol leader are behind the lawsuit seeking to have the voter approved amendments thrown out.

I could inject a few of my opinions on this, but seeing how this is a legal issue, conjecture would not fit in at this point.


(notice to moderators: I went close to the limit on my snips from the article, but felt they were needed as several points of consideration are brought forth.)

[dutch777]

1. But cooking up lawsuits with no basis in fact for Trump is probably just fine. Sheesh!!!

Let's hope the Dems can fix the Federal part of this...so dumb when nobody much worries about cannabis use anymore.

[Wellstone ruled]

2. Yupper,the old double cross over the

citizens of Sodak once again. Coming up on six years since this same crew shut down the Santee Tribe in Flandrau .

[groundloop]

3. This is also an issue for the banking/financial part of the marijuana business as well

Banks are refusing to providing banking services, even in states where it's legal, because it's still not legal at the federal level. Kinda' difficult to run a business without loans, credit cards, etc.

[They_Live]

4. Assumes guilt of the defendant

prior to a trial to determine guilt or innocence. Odd that.

[catrose]

5. I thought everyone deserved legal counsel, no matter what

[James48]

6. Must be high priority in the coming weeks.

Do not wait to makes federal law changes! With the House, Senate and WH, re-scheduling needs to be legally implemented immediately, and sales/possession needs to be decriminalized in the first month or two. Do NOT put off making changes- kill the criminal penalties right away, then we can work on what is the best policy to pursue.

[Hestia]

7. House already voted to legalize cannabis a couple of weeks ago, sitting on Mitch's pile

o'paperwork now. Schumer is now in charge (1/21), so we'll definite see...

[Yeehah]

8. What about drunken hit-and-run murderer republican attorneys general?

Is it okay to help them out?