American Banker ViewPoint Articles on Supreme Court Preemption Opinion

We'd rather litigate than adopt consumer protections.  That's what some of these opinion pieces are saying, including today's American Banker article by Cheyenne Hopkins, "A Preemption of Clarity," a collection of remarks by lawyers. 

Of course, one or two comments and opinion letters do go beyond whining to look at how banks can use the Cuomo v. Clearing House opinion to foster their business and their image.  Stephan L. Jouret, in his July 10, 2009, ViewPoint piece, "Ruling in Cuomo Can Be Pro-Industry," reminds us that "banking isn't a zero sum game, and what's good for states and consumers isn't necessarily bad for the financial institutions industry." 

The flip side of that is also true.  Just because the OCC "won" a series of court cases on preemption, doesn't mean they were doing the right thing for the national economy, for the banking industry, or for consumers.  Lawyers, including those at big law firms and at the OCC who pursued these cases and who are now griping about the Cuomo decision, seem to have lost sight of the world beyond the courthouse and outside the Beltway. 

In my opinion, the best response to Cuomo from national banks and the OCC would be to start beefing up their consumer protections, instead of looking for ways to pick apart Cuomo and see how little they will have to do for the benefit of consumers.  A bank's best defense against litigation is to serve all of its customers well and to make that a prominent part of its mission.  And for those lawyers who really want to serve their clients' long-term best interests, it would be refreshing to see them helping banks do that.

(ag) July 14, 2009, in Federal Preemption, Supreme Court