From: Alan L. Sachs [alansachs@lvcablemodem.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 10:29 AM
To: rule-comments@sec.gov
Subject: S7-05-03 (NASD-2002-168)

Folks:  Let me begin by saying thanks for the thankless job you do.

     Re: NASD 2002-168 proposed rules change.  As it brings into play in a more 
complex way the egos of reg. reps and controlling persons named in statements of 
claim, the process will necessarily become more bogged down with emotion and lack 
of client control by defense counsel.  The victims will be the claimants at 
arbitration.  A quicker and fairly simple alternative to going to court is devolving 
into ugly nasty motion practice at this time that was never intended to follow 
Shearson v. McMahon. 

    Imagine the burden on defense counsel when his/her clients are not satisfied 
with fair settlements or mediation, but rather insist on every expungement possible 
ploy at every opportunity.  It will be their right to slow the process.   This rule 
is defense counsel's dream.  The typical meritorious customer claim that could have 
been wrapped up in 10-50 hours of billable time or less in a quick settlement, now 
disappears into a 100-300 hours plus labyrinth file.  Settlement volumes are reduced 
and the already overloaded regions backpedal still further.  Truly this opens the 
door for a logjam and long term relief for defense counsel in an eventual period 
of claims or regulatory practice slowdown.

    This is just one person's vision of the inescapable fallout going forward.  There 
is nothing "unclear" about the present standard of "factual impossibility."  An 
independent review of the record in a post award time frame by the industry person's 
separate petition would not slow the claimant's process and would do better retaining 
the confidence of the public customer.   The CRD system must retain its integrity 
independently.  To interject its impact into the timing and merit of the customer's 
claim will result in bogus counterclaims deterring frightened customers from proceeding 
in the simple, honest arbitration process they seemed to previously be guaranteed.  
Clients I have represented with solid claims, are already frightened and occasionally 
deterred by even the possibility the Broker Dealer might be awarded costs and attorney's 
fees.

    Thank you for addressing this most important issue.
	
alansachs@lvcm.com