Conflict of Interest: Lubinsky, Lewin and Agudath Israel of America

This week's issue of Kosher Today, the Menachem Lubinsky-edited trade journal that consistently fails to mention Lubinsky is a paid consultant and spokesperson for Agriprocessors, reports Agudath Israel of America will issue an announcement this week opposing…

…Hechsher Tzedek:

Major Orthodox organization said to oppose Hekhsher Tzedek

New York…Agudath Israel of America, one of the nation’s largest Orthodox Jewish organizations, is set to come out against the Hekhsher Tzedek, a new kosher symbol floated by Conservative rabbis to verify compliance with ethical behavior in the treatment of animals and laborers, KosherToday has learned. The organization’s highly respected Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah (Council of Torah Sages) is said to have authorized the organization to publicly oppose the new symbol initiated by Rabbi Morris Allen, a Conservative rabbi from Minneapolis who subsequently obtained the endorsement of the Conservative rabbinate. Sources say that Agudath Israel’s position will be consistent with the position taken by other mainstream Orthodox organization and certifying agencies, which basically oppose the broadening of the traditional definition of kosher, despite Rabbi Allen’s assertions that the new symbol would be in addition to the traditional kashrus symbol. The organization is scheduled to release its position in the coming days, virtually assuring that the Hekhsher Tzedek symbol will not be accepted by kosher businesses and the majority of core kosher consumers. Kashrus organizations, headed by the Orthodox Union, have argued that they fully rely on government oversight to protect consumers from the ethical considerations that the Conservative movement is concerned about.

The Hekhsher Tzedek issue has become the focus of widespread media attention, including a front page article in Saturday’s New York Times, but most media sources have failed to make the point that the Hekhsher Tzedek is opposed across the board in the Orthodox community. Even rabbis who told KosherToday that they welcomed the kind of concern for ethics that Rabbi Allen is advocating, are questioning how the standard could be practically implemented, why it is applied only to kosher foods and not to all Jewish-owned businesses (or, for that matter, non-Jewish), and how the kosher consumer could afford to fund such a new certification at a time of rapidly rising food prices. The debate surrounding the Hekhsher Tzedek symbol largely revolves around the beleaguered Agriprocessors plant in Postville, Iowa, which continues to be beset by an ongoing onslaught of allegations. On Friday, the Iowa Department of Labor slapped the company with $101,000 in fines for 31 alleged violations, 8 of which dealt with one extension cord. Agriprocessors had hired a former OSHA official who told a group of 20 visiting Orthodox rabbis on July 31st that the plant was “99% compliant with federal and state OSHA requirements.”

What Lubinsky fails to disclose is that he sits on Agudath Israel of America's Board of Governors and that Agriprocessors' attorney, Nathan Lewin, has a decades-long special relationship with Agudath Israel, and is a special advisor to the group on issues related to ritual slaughter and freedom of religion.

In other words, both Agriprocessors' attorney and its spokesman hold leadership positions in Agudath Israel of America, which is now issuing a policy statement in support of Agriprocessors.

Lewin, I'm told, was directly involved in this successful effort to lobby the USDA, helping to represent Agudath Israel of America while at the same time serving – without disclosure – as Agriprocessors' attorney. The changes made to USDA Humane Slaughter policy as a result for the most part benefited Agriprocessors alone.

These are both clear examples of conflict of interest. They call into question the legality of Agudath Israel of America's tax exempt status. And they should cause Nathan Lewin to be sanctioned by the bar.

Comments

[Paul Freedman]

They say bad cases make bad law. It is unfortunate that AgriP is clouding the issue of (for Orthodox or generally) what is the ultimate horizon of CM's intention for this certification (we've had debate for example on the enforcement of the diversity requirements) or how, if AgriP didn't exist, Orthodox consumers or their institutions would feel about a certificate whose sponsoring agency has taken different stances from Orthodox in certain areas of family relations, etc. or what would be the extension of social concerns for kashrus absent the distraction of AgriP's collapse-in-progress.

[Paul Freedman]

I don't think you'll get much traction on lifting tax exempt status or sanctioning AgriP retainers based on cross-participation--if that were true the infrastructure of, say Democratic Party 508s and support groups, whose cross-fertilization just as inevitably traces back to commercial and private concerns would go bye-bye.

[Carol Ann Varley]

I wish there were an investigative report addressing why the original USDA directive was issued. Obviously, someone from the USDA observed violations and tried to stop them.

[Nat Lewin should be disbarred]

You make a very valid point that Lewin should be sanctioned.

Why don't you take it up with the bar?

The fact that Agudas Israel is showing so much corruption, all the way at their top brass, makes this story a much more sensational story than 5W caught with their pants down, impersonating someone online.

Such a sensational story of such obscene corruption at the top of Agudas Israel of America and Corrupt unethical behavior by Nat Lewin should be Headline News in the New York Times and all other major media.

[Sam]

Where do you take it from that Lewin represented Agri back in 2004 when he represented Agudath Israel in lobbying the USDA?

[Archie Bunker]

http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/ethics/legal_ethics/rules_of_professional_conduct/amended_rules/rule_three/rule03_09.cfm

Rule 3.9—Advocate in Nonadjudicative Proceedings

A lawyer representing a client before a legislative or administrative body in a nonadjudicative proceeding shall disclose that the appearance is in a representative capacity and shall conform to the provisions of Rules 3.3, 3.4(a) through (c), and 3.5.

http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/ethics/legal_ethics/rules_of_professional_conduct/amended_rules/rule_eight/rule08_04.cfm

Rule 8.4—Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) Violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(c) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;
(d) Engage in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice;

[Jason]

Sam,

On 12/31/2004, the Washington Post wrote an article titled "USDA Empowers Inspectors to Shut Kosher Plants for Animal Cruelty" that cited Lewin as an attorney representing AgriProcessors.

As did the LA Times in a 12/28/04 article.

And the Jewish Week on 12/24/08 and 12/10/04.

[state of the Jews]

Good research Jason!

[Sam]

And is there any information that Lewin has not disclosed the conflict and obtained written informed consent from both parties, other than what Shmarya says "I'm told"?

[Shmarya]

And is there any information that Lewin has not disclosed the conflict and obtained written informed consent from both parties, other than what Shmarya says "I'm told"?

Yes, Sam. None of the rabbis in that October 23, 2003 meeting at the USDA I talked to knew Lewin worked for Agriprocessors.

BTW, Lewin's name is all over the correspondence (posted here several times) with PETA in the year leading up to the Nov 2004 release of the undercover videotape.

[Jason]

That is something we cannot know Sam, and will be for the ethics board to figure out.

[Paul Freedman]

3.9 doesn't speak to dual represenation does it? that Lewin represents AgriP doesn't mean he can't represent Agudath for purposes of 3.9--isn't that just a pro forma notification requirement? how does that tie into conflict of interest?

[Archie Bunker]

Dual representation vis a vis the clients is elsewhere in the code. As far as I can tell, 3.9 deals with full disclosure to the govt body.

[Jason]

The next question is whether Lewin was required to be registered as a lobbyist for the work he did on behalf of Agudath Israel and whether he was so registered.

My research shows Lewin & Lewin as registered lobbyists for one company, not Agudath Israel, although I only saw records starting in 2005. Agudath Israel has one lobbying firm listed from 2005-2008 and it is not Lewin.

[Sam]

++Yes, Sam. None of the rabbis in that October 23, 2003 meeting at the USDA I talked to knew Lewin worked for Agriprocessors.++

Full disclosure does not require that the Rabbis who were at the meeting know that Lewin worked for Agri. All it requires is that Lewin disclose it to his clients and obtained their consent. His clients were not the Rabbis that were at the meeting. His clients were Agri and Agudath Israel.

++The next question is whether Lewin was required to be registered as a lobbyist for the work he did on behalf of Agudath Israel and whether he was so registered.++

And who says that Lewin acted formally as the lobbyist on behalf of Agudath Israel on that directive. Where does Shmarya and all of you who are assuming so take that from?

[Jason]

That's why I said: "the next question is whether Lewin was required to be registered as a lobbyist for the work he did on behalf of Agudath Israel." I never said he acted formally as the lobbyist.

[Paul Freedman]

archie, so for purposes of 3.9 if he officially notified the chair that he was representing Agudath, which he was, then he'd be OK

for purposes of 3.9 (notwithstanding representation in some capacity of AgriP in other instances)

I can't get a bead as to whether outrage is that Agudath as an organization is content with cross-representation and cross affiliation with AgriP ro whether Lewin is hiding his affiliation to AgriP from Agudath--can't be both at the same time--

[Archie Bunker]

Barack Hussein Obama sticks to his guns for a change, instead of waffling.

Lewin is pulling the union card, trying to give Obama an escape hatch to say he was duped by UFCW.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080826/NEWS/80826022&theme=POSTVILLE_ICE_RAID

Agriprocessors fired back today at presidential candidate Barack Obama for suggesting the meatpacking plant face punishment over allegations that it knowingly hired underage workers and illegal immigrants.

A lawyer for the embattled Postville company said Obama’s comments at a Davenport campaign rally Monday were unfair to the company.

He (Lewin) also mentioned that he’d (Obama) learned of some of the details from the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which has sharply criticized Agriprocessors and tried to organize its workers.

Obama spokeswoman Jenni Lee said today that he stood by his words.

“Sen. Obama reiterated the fact that there have been a lot of questions raised by federal authorities about Agriprocessors’ hiring practices and workplace conditions,” she said. “He very clearly stated that a critical part of fixing our broken immigration system is holding accountable companies that break the law. That’s exactly what he’ll do as president.”

[Archie Bunker]

There's really no issue here about cross-rep'ing as the Agudah will do anything to protect Agri. While they are not fond of Lubavitch and stopped inviting them to their events about 20 years ago, they are beholden by the same paranoid conspiracy theory as the OU, that everyone is out to ban shechita in general.

[Paul Freedman]

the nub here is the claim that he represents Agudath before USDA while maintaining legal representation with AgriP--assuming that's the case then I'd guess that this advocacy was officially recognized before relevant hearings--as for dual representation, if, Shmarya's point I think, Agudath is happy with him representing AgriP, if indeed AgriP's key personel have leadership roles in Agudath it isn't so much a case of conflict of interest as shared interest, the very shared interest Shmarya deplores--but if it's shared interest I don't see a legal issue

?

[Archie Bunker]

There are some very amusing comments on the latest Register article, like calling Rubashkin, "Agri-Cheaters" and this one from "Mr. Clean":

For a meatpacking plant, they've got a pretty thin skin. ;-)

[Archie Bunker]

Simply put, Lewin should have to disclose to any govt body that he represents both Rubashkin and the Agudah.

[Paul Freedman]

archie, if push comes to shove and AgriP as a business entity really gets slammed by Iowa, then the feds, then etc. (and getting in a pi**ing match with a Presidential candidate is not a good sign here) then is there anything to really prevent Lewin, even Lubinsky from cutting AgriP loose?

[Archie Bunker]

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=8cd499cb176dc139ef917b478db3e086

This is too much. The Democrats brought up Rubashkin at the Convention and are trying to paint ICE as some evil entity under the control of Ken Starr. What's interesting is that they say that 70% of illegal immigrant workers are highly skilled which I don't really buy, but it makes Agri look bad for turning down the Somalis with the excuse that they weren't cut out.

[Paul Freedman]

archie, my small point is that on 3.9 if he is not before a legal board on AgriP business then general representation of AgriP may not need to be disclosed--your point would be that, no, the requirement is precisely there to reveal "hidden" obligations and that he needs to disclose this affiliation--my counterpoint would be that if the course of action he's taking is for a client who is present then he may not need to disclose his repping of a client who isn't unless the client who is objects.

[Archie Bunker]

Lewin may stand something to gain by dumping the Rubashkins but Lubinsky is a whore who will keep beating a dead horse as long as he thinks he can get a few more bucks. Lubinsky also has much less exposure to bad PR in the D.C. Beltway.

[Paul Freedman]

Ken Starr?

too much

[Archie Bunker]

"on 3.9 if he is not before a legal board on AgriP business"

But he was. The whole point before the USDA was Rubashkin abuses.

[Archie Bunker]

I'm surprised they didn't dredge up some older Democrat punching bags to blame the Agri raid on like Newt Gingrich. This crap is just pandering to the ultra-left who think that the Party has sold them out.

[Paul Freedman]

archie, your quick guess, where is this all, say, three months down the road?

[Jason]

Paul, I think the point is that if someone (for example, Lewin) is lobbying the government on legislation that affects one of his clients (AgriProcessors) and only discloses to the government that he represents the party coming before the government asking for the new legislation (Aguda), then there would be a deception. I'm not sure if it violates ethical rules or lobbying laws, but it is at the very least deceitful.

Telling the USDA that the change in legislation is important for a religious organization is very different than requesting the same change for a commercial organization.

[Archie Bunker]

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=e6085efca1386c7fff8a72ae4f42e0b6

Now I get it. Zoe Lofgren is a former immigration attorney. They make their living off of demonizing ICE.

[Archie Bunker]

"three months down the road?"

It depends how many stalling tactics Lewin can come up with. If Rubashkin puts together a legal dream team of multiple lawyers, this could take years to sort out.

[Paul Freedman]

but re: the appearance before the board was Rubashkin abuses that's Shmarya's interpretation "apparently to benefit Rubashkin etc."--scanning the article the sponsors of the meeting formally were the certifiers and Aguda not manufacturers, with AgriP being a back-bencher participant if involved--Shmarya interprets the "additional cut to permit bleeding" as being intended to permit ripping out an animals throat entrails which may be what's going on but maybe not, if not, then the AgriP connection disappears--even if so, if the rest of the crew was on board and stating we want to permit such and such then Lewin's legal obligation may have ended by stating I'm here to represent so and so who want to do such and such, regardless as to whether they had adopted AgriP's policies

[Paul Freedman]

Jason, assuming back-bench AgriP involvement, in a nutshell, my curiosity would be ethical or legal breach, archie, wow

really

I have no animus towards the family since that's a ways out of my cultural neck of the woods and Getzel for that matter seems like a nice guy but they are seriously jammed up

and from the news accounts they're agents are running side deals off the side deals

send in the lawyers

wow

[pulitzer4shmarya]

Lewin can't be both a lawyer for Rubashkin and an advocate for halacha. As a lawyer for Rubashkin he can and should try and keep him out of prison with delay tactics and finding loopholes in the U.S. law. that is not considered unethical.
However, using the same tactics in regards to Kashrut is morally wrong. Most of our laws of Kashrut are chumras on top of chumras. We have to go out of our way to be morally pure and not try to get out requirements by finding loopholes. I disagreed with his tone when he picked on Rabbi Herzfeld and now he is picking a fight with presidential candidate Obama.
His defense of Agriprocessors in the newspapers is sullifying his many years of pro-bono work for the Jewish community. He should be reprimanded for speaking halacha to the press and it should be reiterated that he is not a Rabbi and does not speak on behalf of the Orthodox community.

[Paul Freedman]

fyi: company not worth keeping/ICE

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,411121,00.html

[Archie Bunker]

Lewin is a putz for criticizing the rabbi where he attends shul because someone is paying him to do so. At the very least he should resign his membership there. If he was a mentch he would have recused himself in this case.

[steve]

It's interesting to note that Lewin had no problem with attacking the rabbi of his synagogue in the press, while Obama refused at first to criticize the controversial statements of the pastor of his church.

[rebitzman]

++It's interesting to note that Lewin had no problem with attacking the rabbi of his synagogue in the press, while Obama refused at first to criticize the controversial statements of the pastor of his church. ++

Evel Knievel couldn't make that leap.

[Sam]

++Lewin is a putz for criticizing the rabbi where he attends shul because someone is paying him to do so.++

Pity unto your Rabbi for hosting to a congregant who wouldn't criticize when criticism is due. A Rabbi who makes careless statements exposes himself to deserving criticism regardless of who makes it. As Shmarya would say, don't shoot the messenger.

[Sam]

++I disagreed with his tone when he picked on Rabbi Herzfeld++

So it is his tone you disagreed with, not the substance.

[Archie Bunker]

Sam, your lame Devil's advocacy on behalf of the Agudah is so predictable that it's boring already.

Get this through your thick skull. Lewin has very weak complaints against his rabbi if even that and he attacked him in public. Lewin is BEING PAID to attack his own rabbi. Even the heads of the RCA who were forced to respond did not say anything about Rabbi Herzfeld personally.

[shmuel]

I like the idea of banning shechitah. By cutting down on fatty meat, we'll all live healthier. When the "9 days" roll around, I barely notice them, diet-wise.

[pulitzer4shmarya]

Hypothetically....
Let's say one wanted to file a formal complaint to the bar about Nat Lewin's behavior to have him sanctioned.
How would one go about that?
Would one need a lawyer?

[Archie Bunker]

Actually, any lawyer aware of an ethical breach is a mandated reporter who is himself / herself in violation for not reporting it to the bar.

Any private individual may also file complaints but you will be much more successful if you have a lawyer do it for you.

[Archie Bunker]

I have a feeling however that the govt is not interested in nailing Lewin here and will tell the DC Bar that the meeting with Lewin was not a formal inquiry that would require full disclosure from him.

[DC resident]

To Archie, steve, rebitzman and the rest of the slightly ignorant crew who likes to assume more than they actually know-

Lewin does not attend Herzfeld's synagogue, nor has he in the couple of years that Herzfeld has been at his congregation. It is extremely difficult to depict his article as a attack on Herzfeld. Although he meant well, Herzfeld violated basic Jewish law by writing the op-ed in the NY Times under the guise that the allegations are true. It is not acceptable for a Rabbi in his position to condemn a specific company for alleged violations of Halacha in a secular and public venue without pursuing the appropriate channels within the Jewish community and his motives must be called into question by doing so. If Herzfeld is truly a defender of Jewish values of social justice, he should give equal (and perhaps more) attention to issues closer to home. Targeting AgriProcessors for censure in a prominent national newspaper is primarily politically motivated, at best.

[steve]

Herzfeld violated basic Jewish law by writing the op-ed in the NY Times

And which law would that be? I think he fulfilled a mitzvah by publicizing the matter. If only one Jew was saved from eating Rubashkin products because of the article, then he qualifies as a hero. This rabbi is totally leshem shamayim. What "political" motives? The only ones with political motives are the rabbis that continue to defend Rubashkin despite the overwhelming incriminating evidence. Lewin, Lubinsky, Abrahams, Shafran and the Agudah are all either on Rubashkin's payroll or are politically motivated. Rabbi Herzfeld has nothing to gain financially or politically by going public and stating the truth. The Agudah and those Gilligan Island rabbis are the ones that should be ashamed for their continued coverup and for defending the indefensible. Of course the Agudah now "BANS" Hechsher Tzedek. They have already banned tzedek, justice, already, for the sake of money and politics. If you don't see it, then you are blind.

[Archie Bunker]

To the DC apologist for Lewin who is engaging in his own slimy attack on Rabbi Herzfeld,

It was my understanding that Lewin still occasionally attends the National Synagogue but in any case he is still a member.

Rabbi Herzfeld attempted going through Jewish channels but was rebuffed because it is the corrupt organizational heads who are not following halacha by covering up for Rubashkin. There are enough proven issues to pursue Rubashkin on at this point and even the many yet unproven allegations have the halachic status of kala delo passik that may be acted on.

Your sloppily thought out post makes you as transparent as the safety goggles that Rubashkin illegally forces his employees to pay for out of pocket. You start off saying Rabbi Herzfeld "meant well" before accusing him of duplicitous political agendas. Maybe your friend Nat should write the next comeback as a trained lawyer is better at spinning things.