Pubdate: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 Source: New Haven Register (CT) Copyright: 2013 New Haven Register Contact: http://www.nhregister.com Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/292 Author: Hugh McQuaid Note: This story has been modified from its original version. See the original at ctnewsjunkie. com. Page: A6 STATE'S MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAW STILL AT ODDS WITH FEDERAL LAW A panel of lawyers Friday explored the legal minefield Connecticut's medical marijuana statute presents for attorneys representing clients seeking to produce and distribute a product the state permits but which the federal government prohibits. The discussion, part of a forum at the University of Connecticut School of Law, centered around "demystifying" the state's medical marijuana policy. Connecticut's medical marijuana program has been touted as one of the most tightly regulated programs of its kind and an August U.S. Department of Justice memo suggested the federal government is unlikely to crack down on the state any time soon. However, marijuana remains classified as an illegal and dangerous drug nationally. That classification presents ethical and practical challenges for lawyers who represent clients seeking to establish marijuana growing facilities and dispensaries needed for the new program to work. "I feel a little bit like I'm the one out in the trenches right now, tiptoeing through land mines," said Diane W. Whitney, an attorney with Pullman & Comley. Whitney represents a client seeking to be licensed to establish a marijuana growing facility and some dispensaries in Connecticut. The federal government's prohibition of her client's goal presents ethical and risk-management concerns, she said. "Unlike with other clients, there are certain things that we will not do for this client. And every step of the way - including whether I could be here to speak today - requires the approval of our risk management committee," she said. John Logan, chairman of Connecticut Bar Association Professional Ethics Committee, said there are no clear-cut or easy answers for lawyers working in the state's fledgling medical marijuana industry. He said the Ethics Committee took up part of the issue and arrived at an opinion he read for those at the symposium: lawyers may advise clients on the state medical marijuana law and they may not assist clients in conduct violating federal law. "Lawyers should carefully assess where the line is between those functions and not cross it," Logan said as he finished reading. The last part drew laughs from some in a crowd of attorneys and law students. "That's a pretty good punt. That's about a 60-yard punt," Logan said. "I guess in the long run, all of us as lawyers are responsible for our own conduct, and we did punt it back to the lawyers." Logan said rules governing lawyer conduct do not differentiate between crimes the government enforces and those it does not. So attorneys must determine for themselves whether the services their clients request amount to helping someone violate federal law. Whitney said the Justice Department's August memo on enforcement priorities was comforting in that it suggested the feds were not interested in prosecuting people involved with tightly regulated marijuana programs such as the one in Connecticut. However, the memo was not a concrete assurance, she said. Chief State's Attorney Kevin Kane said prosecutors cannot just announce they are not going to enforce an existing law. But they can set priorities for which laws they want to devote limited resources to prosecute, he said. In some cases, Whitney said the DOJ memo helped convince municipalities to agree to allow marijuana facilities. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom