From: CRFinley@aol.com Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 11:33 PM To: rule-comments@sec.gov Subject: File No. S7-45-02 I am writing to express lay support for a change in attorney rules. The goal of these rules must be to strike a balance between attorney-client privilege, and achieving investor confidence. The January 24, 2003 Wall Street Journal has reported on two pending results of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act: the mutual fund disclosure of proxy votes, and the noisy withdrawal proposal. At this time I am suggesting alternatives to both provisions. Mutual fund disclosure of proxy votes might force mutual funds to reveal conflicts of interest that act against investors. However, I would be in support of a broader rule that requires publicly traded companies to disclose the votes of ALL shareholders above x%. (The SEC would be best to determine 'x' to achieve desired effects.) This does place more burden on publicly traded companies, but it would afford similar protections to both smaller investors who tend to use mutual funds, and those who invest individual stocks. The noisy withdrawal concept should be acceptable to any lawyer that believes in justice. SEC should see an opportunity to work with the American (or state) Bar Association (s), which, like most professional associations, has a code of ethics. A mechanism that binds lawyers to the ABA code of ethics, or auditors to a CPA code of ethics, but indirectly feeds partial information to the SEC could aid SEC enforcement a great deal. The ABA could amend a code of ethics such that lawyers could resign and/or report limited information (such as state, industry, generalized suspicion) to the ABA. A rule that achieves even voluntary disclosures that give the SEC tips on where to start investigations, might do better for Corporate America and the investing public than mandatory reporting that results in higher unemployment for lawyers, and corporations with less internal legal guidance than are currently in use. Cheryl Finley, MBA, Concerned Citizen Christiansburg, VA