From: Steven Sherman [stevenmsherman2001@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 12:37 PM
To: rule-comments@sec.gov
Subject: Comment on Proposed Rule SR-NASD 2002-168


	I am an attorney in private practice in San
Francisco, CA.  During my career, I have represented
brokerage firms, registered representatives and
investors in securities arbitrations and other
matters.  I have also worked in the compliance
department of the firm formerly known as Shearson
Lehman Hutton.   I am a member of the Public Investors
Arbitration Bar Assoc. as well as the American Bar
Association's litigation and business committees.

	I write to OPPOSE any rule which would make it easier
for a party to litigation or arbitration to expunge
his, her or its CRD.  My reasons follow:

	First.    Subject to exception for minors and
ceratain victims of violent crime, no other party to
litigation in a state or federal court proceeding can
"expunge" or otherwise remove an entry in a public
record indicating that the same party was a party to
litigation.  There should be no exception for an
arbitration proceeding before a SRO's forum, or any
other forum.

	Second.  The securities laws are based on disclosure.
 Certainly, the fact that an individual has been
charged with civil wrongdoing is a material fact which
a reasonable person would consider important when
deciding whether to allow an advisor to make
recommendation's concerning the former's money.  There
should not be a separate tract of disclosure for
persons or entities who advise on investment decisions
compared with issuer disclosures.  Securities laws are
based on disclosure.  William Douglas would be turning
over in his grave if he knew that certain
persons/entities, perhaps the most trusted, would be
able to conceal allegations against him, her or it.  
Most individual investors don't read forms 10 K or 10
Q when seeking investment advice.  They seek advice
from the broker.  Those advising on investment
decisions should have a higher obligation of
disclosure from the companies they recommend.

	Third.      Conducting business in today's society
entails risks.  One such risk is a customer complaint
or lawsuit against a financial advisor.  One should
not accept the benefits in a chosen field that
provides a potentially lucrative reward without
accepting the risk that someone may complain.  The
disclosure of a complaint on the CRD is inherent in
that risk.

	Fourth.    Passing this rule would have an adverse
impact on investor confidence.  Many investors already
believe the cards are stacked against them, and only a
few "Enrons" and "WorldComs" have been exposed.  Many
investors think that SRO-sponsored forums are also
stacked against them.  Passing a rule which allows one
to conceal his record will only accelerate the
feelings of helplessness at the hands of big business.

	The SEC should not tamper with the way public records
are compiled.  Certainly, the SEC would not attempt to
tell a court what should appear on its docket sheet. 
The SEC should not now approve a rule which allows
one's past to be concealed.  The SEC should not
encourage two systems of disclosure: one for issuers,
and another for those who advise on investments. 
Rather, the SEC should honor its mission and demand
full and fair disclosure by all participants in the
public markets.

	Please feel free to call me (415/403-1660) with any
questions or comments.

Steven M. Sherman

=====
Law Offices of Steven M. Sherman
220 Montgomery Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: 415/403-1660
Fax: 415/397-1577
stevenmsherman2001@yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com