From: Sonde, Ted [TSonde@crowell.com]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 4:33 PM
To: rule-comments@sec.gov
Subject: (s7-04-03) Proposed Amendments to Rules of Practice (Release
Nos. 33-8190, 34-47355, 35-27650, 39-2405, IA-2109, IC-25933; File No.
S7-04-03) 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This letter is submitted on behalf of a number of experienced SEC alumni who 
actively practice before the Commission and some of whom not infrequently 
represent clients in administrative proceedings. Each of us has had many years 
of SEC experience.

These comments are submitted in response to the above-referenced Release. Further, 
the views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of our law firm, 
any of our colleagues or any of our clients. To the extent that this comment may be 
a day or two "overdue", we respectfully request that the Commission agree to consider 
it out of time.

We all share the Commission's concern about the lack of a prompt and fair resolution 
of its administrative proceedings. However, it is our experience that the fault lies 
with the Commission itself and not the administrative law judges or the staff. 

Unfortunately, nothing in the proposed rules aims to correct the problem at the 
Commission level itself. A review by the Commission of its own record in any number 
of the "old" cases, would readily reveal the conclusion set forth above; that is, 
that the Commission itself is at fault. Matters under review languish before the 
Commission for YEARS without decision even when the decision is procedural and the 
resulting order is something that could have been arrived at in a matter of days, 
if not minutes.

Our recommendation is that the Commission propose and adopt rules aimed at correcting 
the problem at the Commission itself. In this regard, we call to the Commission's 
attention the Speedy Trial Act which requires that a criminal case be dismissed 
against an individual criminal defendant if a prompt hearing (within 6 months) is 
not held absent the consent of the defendant. For the most part, that statute has 
acted well to move criminal cases along. We recommend that the Commission review it 
and apply it to the administrative context. 

The proposed rules do nothing to further their purported objective. Moreover, the 
time constraints and the procedures in the proposed rules create artificial deadlines 
that will only result in unfair and prejudicial proceedings. We have reviewed the 
comment letter submitted on behalf of the Broker-Dealer Regulation and SEC Enforcement 
Committee of the District of Columbia Bar's Corporation, Finance, and Securities Law 
Section and share the views set forth therein.  However, since we have a somewhat 
different perspective, we thought we would comment separately.

This comment is also submitted on behalf of Frank Razzano, another former SEC 
enforcement attorney who was formerly Assistant Chief Trial Attorney in the Division 
of Enforcement and who is currently a partner of Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & 
Oshinsky LLP.

								Submitted on behalf of 

								Theodore Sonde
								Richard Morvillo
								Joseph Goldstein
								Kathryn McGrath
								Pat Conti

								Crowell & Morning LLP
								1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
								Washington, D.C. 20004
								(202) 624-2500
								(202) 628-5116 Fax
								
								Crowell & Moring LLP
								Privileged and Confidential
								Attorney-Client Communication
								Attorney Work Product

This message contains privileged and confidential information. IF IT WAS SENT 
TO YOU BY MISTAKE, DO NOT READ IT. Instead, please notify the sender (or 
postmaster@crowell.com) by reply e-mail, and delete this e-mail. Unauthorized 
dissemination, forwarding or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.
============================================================