Department of Labor issue

[Steve1212]

Jurisdiction

Illinois

Trying to gauge an issue. Traditionally when a matter arises with an agency such as the DOL, we have our representation be an attorney as our one and only sole single liaison, no company representation is ever present besides the single attorney. Also like any decent attorney ours figures out immense billable hours for these things too

This attorney is paid significant amounts from our funds and last year he alone was paid 3x's the entire staff salaries of the fund (it is a small fund, but none the less provider costs raised a flag along with total fund costs which is the purpose of this DOL meeting)

My question is: is it considered wise or foolish to let any sole entity be our liason to these agencies or should a fund representative accompany legal to interpret issues from the source… esp if one of the topics is cost paid to the attorney? Many questions in these meetings are also matters that staff and or administrators of the fund could better answer than a legal liason relaying but we always tend to go the rpute of removing direct involvement when meeting with one of these agencies until we cannot anymore(ie deposition). I personally would like to also be there for future meetings to sit in the background and just listen first hand as i dont like having one source tell me what someone said when sometimes the narratives seem self serving.

So is the consensus of the legal word that it Is normally better to not have a single representative and there should be a company one too to sit quietly to 1 not only get their take of the agency issues, 2 be able to resolve questions that are relevant first hand, and 3 remove sole dependencies if you add no buffet layer in doing so?

I can see both sides, but personally i feel if you have nothing to hide, having an extra set of ears and knowledge is a good thing at these types of meeting, but was curious if there are a million legal reasons you want to keep a layer of separation from agencies that are so powerful they can wreck anyones day on a whim and the less direct involvement is normally always better?

Also if the layer of protection is good, is it a good practice to hire second legal representation to join so there is not only person interpreting and to be kind of equalizer to ensure no single person can misrepresent easily?

Thanks in advance, and i apologize for the bon succinct message

 

[adjusterjack]

You're asking for our opinion as to how to reduce your cost of legal representation. Not exactly a "legal" question, but I'll have a go at it.

What kind of "fund"?

What kind of entity? Corporation, LLC, something else?

What's your position?

What kind of issues do you customarily have with the DOL, or any government agency, and how often do they occur?

 

[Steve1212]

No, im asking if when dealing with an agency such as the Department of Labor, should you keep a layer of separation, or should someone accompany our representation in order to gauge and not be dependent on our attorney being the only one in the room having discussions. Basically i prefer to be hands on, but is legal opinion that it is always beneficial to keep a layer of separation unless forced to have direct contact(ie a deposition)

we are a taft hartley fund, my role is operarions, and last we get audit requests and other concerns from DOL more often than most similar funds(in last decade it has been at least 1x every few years)

 

[Zigner]

No, im asking if when dealing with an agency such as the Department of Labor, should you keep a layer of separation, or should someone accompany our representation in order to gauge and not be dependent on our attorney being the only one in the room having discussions. Basically i prefer to be hands on, but is legal opinion that it is always beneficial to keep a layer of separation unless forced to have direct contact(ie a deposition)

we are a taft hartley fund, my role is operarions, and last we get audit requests and other concerns from DOL more often than most similar funds(in last decade it has been at least 1x every few years)

If you don't trust your attorney, then find a new attorney.

 

[army judge]

we are a taft hartley fund, my role is operarions, and last we get audit requests and other concerns from DOL more often than most similar funds(in last decade it has been at least 1x every few years)

You might take 10-20 minutes (or whatever it takes) to refamiliarize yourself with Taft-Hartley Fund basics:

https://www.luch.com/what-are-the-requirements-of-a-taft-hartley-trust-fund/


What Is the Taft-Hartley Act?


Taft-Hartley Trust Funds


What is a Taft Hartley Trust?


After you've become reacquainted with TH101, it might be time to arrange for your attorney to spend 4-5 hour training/discussion session.

 

[adjusterjack]

n last decade it has been at least 1x every few years

Is that all?

Then, yes, my two cents worth is that you should handle it and only hire the lawyer when necessary.

 

[Steve1212]

You might take 10-20 minutes (or whatever it takes) to refamiliarize yourself with Taft-Hartley Fund basics:

Laquer Urban Clifford & Hodge, LLP » What Are the Requirements of a Taft-Hartley Trust Fund?


What Is the Taft-Hartley Act?


Taft-Hartley Trust Funds


What is a Taft Hartley Trust?


After you've become reacquainted with TH101, it might be time to arrange for your attorney to spend 4-5 hour training/discussion session.

Is this a reference to the seemingly frequent DOL inquiries, or am I missing how the fund being Taft Hartley effects whether it is a good practice to ensure that we keep a buffer layer and avoid having a direct fund representative also attend these meetings? Issues we have had have never been operational. They stem from costs the fund pays out(2 providers specially, and a prohibited transaction back in 2012(before my time)). That seemingly put the fund under the microscope or maybe just coincidence the frequency of inquiries.

If it were my call I'd change some things related to fund costs but it is not my decision. I would however feel much more comfortable having another party attend as the cost to this provider at least to me see disproportionate to similar i have seen, it is a primary issue of this inquiry the dol is looking at… Basically i dont see said provider coming back post the meeting saying "The dol really thinks I have been reeming you guys on costs as they dont see how such a small fund pays my outrages disproportionate fees when there is no litigation going on"… but if similiar is being said (maybe it is a bad assumption), but I'd like to hear from horses mouth their concerns as keeping this sepeation layer as we have always had does not seem to be lessening their interest in the fund…. Simply do we add liability in anyway breaking that layer of separation is my conern?

 

[adjusterjack]

Your inquiry seems to be an exercise in futility. Whoever is running your show is doing it his way and isn't going to care about opinions you get here.

 

[Steve1212]

Your inquiry seems to be an exercise in futility. Whoever is running your show is doing it his way and isn't going to care about opinions you get here.

I concur 100% on that, but the forum is to get legal opinion whether legal opinion one way or another is ever factored into a discussion outside here or decisions is unknown, but personally i want to know and understand if legal advice is to keep that layer of separation firm because it lessons liability?

I very much like your succinct and accurate point, and i do not disagree with it…. I however still want to pursue the legal consensus

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

In my former job of 20+ years, I've had to deal with both state and federal DOL on numerous occasions. I always met them. A time or two I took a lawyer with me. Never paid a fine to any DOL.

I can't think of a situation where sending a lawyer alone would be cost efffective.