Skip to content
Photo of Jean Veta

Jean Veta

Jean Veta is described by Chambers USA as "one of the premier banking and financial regulatory enforcement litigators in the country.” She defends financial institutions and their officers and directors in civil and regulatory enforcement matters, government investigations, internal corporate investigations, and congressional investigations.

Jean regularly represents clients on the full range of regulatory enforcement issues, including:

  • advising on safety and soundness issues, UDAAP and other consumer compliance issues, fair lending, anti-money laundering, securities issues, and FIRREA and False Claims Act investigations.
  • appearing before the federal bank regulators, the CFPB, FinCEN, the Department of Justice, the SEC, and state attorneys general and bank regulators

Jean’s pro bono work includes:

  • Filing amicus briefs on behalf of over 20 professional medical associations in opposition to state laws that would ban gender affirming medical care for transgender adolescents. Amici include the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the American Psychiatric Association.
  • Filing an amicus brief in support of transgender students’ rights. Amici include the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Medical Association.
  • Representing civil rights organizations, an interfaith group of clergy, and four same-sex couples in support of Washington DC’s marriage equality.
  • Representing pro-choice organizations in Congressional investigations into fetal tissue research and late-term abortion.

Jean is ranked in Chambers USA's Band 1 for Banking Enforcement and Investigations. She was named by The American Lawyer as Litigator of the Week and by Best Lawyers in America as "Washington's Lawyer of the Year for Banking and Finance Litigation" and "Washington's Lawyer of the Year for Financial Services Regulatory Law."

In 2020, Jean was appointed to a three-year term on the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which provides an impartial evaluation of the professional qualifications of all federal judicial nominees. As the Standing Committee’s representative for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Jean served as a principal evaluator of Supreme Court nominee, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s professional qualifications to serve on the Court. Jean testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding Justice Jackson’s integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament. On April 7, 2022 Justice Jackson was confirmed by the Senate to replace Justice Stephen Breyer.

Jean also serves as the DC Bar’s Delegate to the ABA House of Delegates.

During President Clinton’s administration, Jean served as:

  • Deputy Associate Attorney General, United States Department of Justice (2000-2001)
  • Deputy General Counsel, United States Department of Education (1998-2000)

As described in Chambers USA, one client said “She's at the top of her game and top of the industry. She has a keen intellect, and a commanding knowledge of the law, excellent judgment and a passion for zealous representation of her client. You can do no better than to have Jean on your side. She's the leader in her field."

Contact:Read more about Jean VetaEmail
On June 14, 2019, the Federal Reserve Board (“Federal Reserve”) released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPR”) requesting public comment on updates to its regulations governing the disclosure of confidential supervisory information (“CSI”) and its Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) procedures. Although the Federal Reserve classified many of the proposed

…
Continue Reading Federal Reserve Issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Confidential Supervisory Information and FOIA Procedures

On February 7, 2018, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or “Bureau”) published the latest in its growing series of Requests for Information (“RFI”), this one seeking comment on the Bureau’s enforcement process.[1]  As with earlier RFIs, the Bureau recognizes that the enforcement process may impose burdens on regulated entities and is seeking information on how to improve enforcement processes while remaining faithful to the Bureau’s objectives and “ensuring a fair and transparent process for parties subject to [the Bureau’s] enforcement authority.”

This RFI, following on RFIs relating to Civil Investigative Demands[2] and Administrative Adjudications,[3] is further evidence that the CFPB, under new leadership, is closely evaluating a broad range of Bureau activities and their impact on the industry.

While the RFI broadly seeks suggestions on “potential updates or modifications” to the enforcement process,[4] the Bureau emphasizes seven aspects of the process that “may be deserving of more immediate focus.”[5]  Because the CFPB’s enforcement process is a series of inter-related steps, changes to any one of these areas may impact, or be impacted by, changes to other areas.

Before delving into the RFI’s seven focus areas, it is important to recognize an over-arching concern with the Bureau’s enforcement process — namely, the virtual inability to resolve a matter in the supervisory context once it has been referred to the Office of Enforcement.

Inability to Resolve Enforcement Matters Short of Public Enforcement Actions:  The Action Review Committee (“ARC”) and ‘Reverse’ ARC

The Bureau has a formal process — known as the Action Review Committee, or ARC — for moving a matter from a supervisory examination to the Office of Enforcement.  Although the Bureau has taken the position that it technically has a ‘reverse’ ARC process by which matters may be returned to Supervision, this appears to occur on only rare occasions.  The result is that the Office of Enforcement, in practice, appears to have only one means to resolve an issue (other than to drop a case), and that is to bring a public enforcement action.  Meanwhile, the Bureau’s Office of Supervision can address matters through various non-public means, such as a Memorandum of Understanding.Continue Reading CFPB Request for Information Focuses on Concerns about the Enforcement Process