The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has established a Red Flags Rule under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003. The Rule, originally set to go into effect May 1, 2009, requires creditors to develop programs identifying, detecting, and responding to the warning signs ("red flags") of identity theft. The FTC considers lawyers, among other professionals, to be creditors and thus subject to the Rule.

The ABA requested the FTC to postpone enforcement of the Rule in order to assess the implications of the Rule on lawyers and law firms. On April 30, 2009, the FTC delayed enforcement of the Rule until August 1, 2009.

On June 13, 2009, the ABA Board of Governors passed policy urging the FTC and Congress to exempt lawyers from the Red Flags Rule. The Governmental Affairs Office immediately began advocating for the exemption of lawyers from the Rule, both before the FTC and before Congress.

On July 29, 2009, the FTC delayed enforcement of the Rule until November 1, 2009. On August 27, 2009, the ABA filed suit against the FTC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On October 29, 2009, the ABA's motion for summary judgment for declaratory and injunctive relief from the Rule's application to lawyers was granted, and on December 1, 2009, Judge Reggie Walton issued his full opinion in support of the ABA’s motion.

• Order on ABA v. FTC (October 30, 2009)
• Statement of ABA President Carolyn B. Lamm on ABA v. FTC (October 29, 2009)
• Statement of ABA President Carolyn B. Lamm on House Passage of H.R. 3763 (October 2009)
• ABA President Carolyn B. Lamm letter to House Financial Services Committee (October 2009)
• ABA Red Flags Rule Policy (June 13, 2009)
• ABA Red Flags Rule Report (June 13, 2009)
• Wells Letter to FTC Chairman (April 24, 2009)
• Fact Sheet on FTC "Red Flags" Rule (July 2009)

• ABA Press Release (August 27, 2009)
• FTC Complaint
• ABA v. FTC: Memorandum Opinion (December 1, 2009)
• ABA v. FTC: Amended Order (December 1, 2009)

• FTC Website on 'Red Flags' Rule
• Abbreviated FTC Rule- Federal Register (November 9, 2007)
• Full version of FTC Rule- Federal Register (November 9, 2007)
• FTC press release granting three-month delay of enforcement of 'Red Flags' Rule (April 30, 2009)
• FTC Template for Low Risk Entities

Over forty state and metropolitan bars have weighed in against the Red Flags Rule applying to lawyers. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming have all developed policy advocating for the exemption of lawyers from the Rule. In addition, the local bar associations of Los Angeles, California; San Fernando Valley, California; San Francisco, California; New Orleans, Louisiana; New York County, New York; and Columbus, Ohio also object to lawyers being covered under the Red Flags Rule.

• AMA Letter to FTC (September 30, 2008)
• FTC Letter to AMA (February 4, 2009)
• AMA Letter to FTC (February 23, 2009)
• AMA Guidance to Members on FTC "Red Flags" Rule

• ADA Letter to FTC (November 24, 2008)
• FTC Letter to ADA (March 19, 2009)

• Third Circuit Court case Reithman v. Berry, cited by the AMA as conflicting with the FTC’s definition of creditor. (2002)
• Letter from House Committee on Small Business to FTC (April 8, 2009)