January 6, 2021

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

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.)