When you’re a gold man, you’re in for a bit of a surprise.
For one, you can be in the middle of an all-night phone call with the finance minister.
The next morning, you will have to explain to him that you are not a lawyer.
And the following week, you’ll find yourself at the receiving end of a legal challenge.
The question arises: Is this what lawyers are supposed to do?
If so, how do you get around this?
This is the dilemma faced by Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the largest bank in the world, which is now embroiled in a legal battle over whether it should be required to provide legal advice to clients.
Goldman Sachs is the largest financial services company in the US and one of the world’s largest asset managers.
Its employees have been at the helm of the financial institutions they are supposed by law to manage since the financial crisis.
But since last year, it has been facing growing pressure to reform its practices and to change its business model.
Goldmans lawyers, for example, are responsible for representing clients when they go to court to challenge financial decisions made by its managers.
Goldmans lawyer Andrew Lebowitz says that it is not unusual for Goldman to request legal advice from lawyers during the course of a case.
The firm can request help from a broad range of law firms, including private law firms and even the US government.
In a recent filing, Goldmans argued that the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is not legally required to ask Goldman to provide such advice.
“We think that the FTC should be able to decide what is the best way to go about addressing this,” Lebowits attorney said.
In response, the FTC said it would only ask the banks to provide “specific legal advice,” not “general legal advice.”
Goldmans has faced similar complaints before, according to Lebowis attorneys, which led to the agency’s decision in November to block the firm’s request.
The company has argued that this ruling is inconsistent with a 2007 court decision that said the FTC is not required to require financial institutions to provide their lawyers with advice in cases involving their own employees.
“The FTC has been asking banks to do this,” said the lawyers in a filing.
“Goldmans, however, has insisted that it has a strong interest in providing counsel for its employees, and we believe it should have the right to do so.”
The banks argue that it does not need to.
“In our view, the decision is not consistent with the FTC’s mandate to ensure that financial institutions have the best legal advice possible,” a Goldman spokesperson told The Times.
“FTC Chairman Ajit Pai has repeatedly noted that the agency has a fiduciary duty to ensure financial institutions provide counsel to their employees in their own professional capacity.
The FTC is a public agency with the same obligation as Congress to provide the best possible legal advice for financial institutions.”
As the conflict between the law firms involved and the banks has heated up, so too has the legal battle.
In November, the firms filed a complaint with the federal court system in Manhattan, which oversees the securities and investment industry.
In the complaint, they asked the court to force the banks into providing legal advice in the matter of their legal representation.
“Goldman’s conduct constitutes a threat to the integrity of the Commission and threatens the integrity and security of the United States securities markets,” the complaint states.
The complaint has not been withdrawn, but the banks have agreed to pay a total of $2.8 million in legal fees.
The banks have said that the case is not a public-interest litigant, and they have also indicated that they plan to appeal the decision.
The court could order the firms to pay fees that exceed the amount of the settlement.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Justice Department said the agency “is not aware of any action that was taken in response to this complaint, and has no further comment.”