From: Screwthis2@aol.com
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 6:07 PM
To: rule-comments@sec.gov
Subject: S7-45-02

       I have watched closely articles and commentaries regarding attorney conduct 
and the perceived priviledge that corporate executives believe they have with regard 
to corporate attorney's. Attorney's argue that by disclosing illegal or possible 
illegal acts by corporate officers is a violation of "attorney-cliet priviledge.

       I would argue that the corporate attorney's are hired by executives to handle 
the dealings of the corporation and are paid by the corporation. I believe that a 
corporation is a legal entity and therefore capable of entering into relationships 
such as those between attorney's and the client ( in this case the corporation, or 
in other words its shareholders.) Unless the executives are personally paying the 
legla fees of the corporate attorney's, is not the priviledge everyone is refering 
to between the attorney and the corporation. 

       The attorney's have a legal obligation to disclose illegal or possible illegal 
acts to the corporation and its shareholders. 

Yvonne M Morrow
Investor,