#ERISA

ACI’s 8th National Forum on ERISA Litigation

Joseph M. Hamilton

Partner

Mirick O’Connell

Stephen D. Rosenberg

Of Counsel

The Wagner Law Group

October 27 - 28, 2014

Tweeting about this conference?

The Fiduciary Exception to

Attorney-Client Privilege and

Ethical Issues That Arise in ERISA

Litigation

#ERISA

The Fiduciary Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege

2

#ERISA

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE

The attorney-client privilege “is the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law.”

Upjohn v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981). 3

#ERISA

FIDUCIARY EXCEPTION

What is it?

4

#ERISA

•Arose under English common law.

1. If a trustee obtains legal advice

2. to guide the administration of the trust

3. beneficiaries of the trust are entitled to the production of documents regarding that advice.

5

#ERISA

SHOULD IT APPLY IN THE CONTEXT OF ERISA?

No.

6

#ERISA

DOES IT APPLY IN THE CONTEXT OF ERISA?

Yes.

7

#ERISA

DOES IT MAKE SENSE?

No.

8

#ERISA

THEN WHY DO WE HAVE IT?

Because it’s ERISA.

9

#ERISA

GENERAL RULE

Applies to legal advice on matters of “plan administration.”

10

#ERISA

RATIONALE

1. A fiduciary has a duty to disclose to plan beneficiaries all information regarding plan administration.

2. The fiduciary is a representative of the plan beneficiary and is not the real client.

11

#ERISA

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL WHICH HAVE RECOGNIZED

THE FIDUCIARY EXCEPTION • Second – In re Long Island Lighting Co., 129 F.3d 268, 272 (2nd Cir.

1997)

• Fourth – Solis v. Food Employers Lab. Rel. Ass’n, 644 F.3d 221, 228 (4th Cir. 2011)

• Fifth – Wildbur v. ARCO Chem. Co., 974 F.2d 631, 645 (5th Cir. 1992)

• Sixth – Fausek v. White, 965 F.2d 126, 132-133 (6th Cir. 1992)

• Seventh – Bland v. Fiatallis N. Am. Inc., 401 F.3d 779, 787 (7th Cir. 2005)

• Ninth – Stephan v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, 697 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2002)

• Eleventh – Cox v. Adm’r U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1415-16 (11th Cir. 1994)

• DC – In Re Lindsey, 158 F.3d 1263, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1998) cert. denied, 525 U.S. 996 (1998)

12

#ERISA

EXCEPTIONS

13

#ERISA

ADVICE REGARDING NON-FIDUCIARY MATTERS

• Examples – Plan adoption, amendments or termination.

See In re Long Island Co., Solis, Bland. 14

#ERISA

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

•Where the advice concerns a fiduciary’s personal liability, the exception does not apply.

15

#ERISA

WHEN INTERESTS OF THE FIDUCIARY AND BENEFICIARY

DIVERGE

• After final benefit decision has been made. • After litigation has been filed. • Prospect of post-decision litigation generally not enough.

Moss v. Unum Life Ins. Co., 2012 WL 3553497 (6th Cir. 2012) Stephan, 697 F.3d at 933.

16

#ERISA

DOES THE FIDUCIARY EXCEPTION APPLY TO

INSURANCE COMPANIES?

Generally, yes.

17

#ERISA

BUT

See Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 482 F.3d 225 (3rd Cir. 2007).

18

#ERISA

WACHTEL RATIONALE

• Plan beneficiaries are not the “real” clients obtaining legal advice.

• An ERISA beneficiary has no ownership interest in the insurer’s assets before a benefit is paid.

• Insurers pay for legal services out of their own assets, not trust assets.

• Insurers owe duties to all of their customers, not just the beneficiaries of the plan at issue.

• Conflicts with conflict of interest argument. 19

#ERISA

• “Insurer who sells insurance contracts to ERISA-regulated benefit plans is itself the sole and direct client of counsel retained by the insurer, not the mere representative of client-beneficiaries, and not a joint client with its beneficiaries.”

Wachtel, 482 F.3d at 236. 20

#ERISA

DISAGREEING WITH WACHTEL

• Stephan v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 697 F.3d 917,

931-932, n.6 (9th Cir. 2012).

• Krase v. Life Ins. Company of North America, 962

F.Supp.2d 1033, 1037-1038 (N.D. Ill. 2013).

• Smith v. Jefferson Pilot Financial Insurance Company,

245 F.R.D. 45, 46 (D.Mass. 2007).

• Buzzanga v. Life Ins. Company of North America, 2010

WL 1292162 (E.D. Mo. 2010).

21

#ERISA

Ethical Issues That Arise in ERISA Litigation

22

#ERISA

•Ethical Issues

•Conflicts of Interest

•Who is the Client?

•The Engagement Letter

23

#ERISA

CONFLICTING INTERESTS INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM

• A Universe of Actors

• With Different Interests

• With Different Legal Duties

• The Central Questions: Whose interest is being served?

Whose interest are you protecting?

24

#ERISA

AN EXEMPLAR OF THE INHERENT CONFLICT

• Tatum v. RJR Pension Inv. Committee, 761 F.3d 346 (4th

Cir. 2014).

• Whose Interest Was Being Served?

• Whose Interest Was Supposed to Have Been Served?

25

#ERISA

• The Work of the Fiduciaries:

• “RJR failed to engage in a prudent decision-making process. The court found that the working group's decision in March 1999 was made with virtually no discussion or analysis and was almost entirely based upon the assumptions of those present and not on research or investigation. Indeed, the court found that the group's discussion of the Nabisco stocks lasted no longer than an hour and focused exclusively on removing the funds from the Plan. . . .Rather, those involved in the October discussion expressed their view that the employees who cashed out their Nabisco stock at a loss were a problem, and there was fear that [these] early sellers might sue RJR. The court found that the discussion focused around the liability of RJR, rather than what might be in the best interest of the participants”.

• Tatum v. RJR Pension Inv. Committee, 761 F.3d 346 (4th Cir. 2014).

26

#ERISA

• “[I]n light of the fiduciary duty to act solely in the interest of

participants and beneficiaries, it was clearly improper for

the fiduciaries to consider their own potential liability as

part of the reason for not changing course on their decision

to divest the Plan of Nabisco stocks. The district court

concluded that [t]he lack of effort on the part of those

considering the removal of the Nabisco Funds—from March

1999 until the stock was removed from the plan on January 31,

2000—compel[led] a finding that the RJR decision-makers in

this case failed to exercise prudence in coming to their decision

to eliminate the Nabisco Funds from the Plan.”

• Tatum v. RJR Pension Inv. Committee, 761 F.3d 346 (4th Cir. 2014).

27

#ERISA

Broad Range of Defendants in

the Typical Case

• the Plan

• the Plan Sponsor

• the Named Fiduciary

• Deemed Fiduciaries

• Company Officers and

Directors Who

Appointed Named

Fiduciaries

• Company Officers and

Directors Who Operate

the Plan or Control its

Asset

• Outside Vendors

28

#ERISA

• Typical of the Class Action Case

• A Suit Filed by a Single Participant May Likewise Name

Many of Them

• Finger Pointing and the Potential Conflict

29

#ERISA

Who is Watching the Hen House?

• Potential Conflicts Among the Plan Sponsor, Named

Fiduciary, Participants

• The ESOP Example

• The Independent Fiduciary Solution

30

#ERISA

Potential Conflict Between the Plan and its Advisors

• Potential Conflict Subgenre - Santomenno ex rel. John

Hancock Trust v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., --- F.3d ----,

2014 WL 4783665 (3rd Cir.(N.J.) Sep 26, 2014).

• Relationship Between/Among the Plan Sponsor/Named

Fiduciary on One Side, and Plan Vendor/Service Provider

On the Other

31

#ERISA

32

• Is it Cured by Fiduciary Warranties and Agreements to

Indemnify?

#ERISA

The D&O Wrinkle

• The Tripartite Relationship

• Conflicted Counsel

• Waiver of Conflict versus Separate Counsel

33

#ERISA

Conflicts in Insurer Provided

Benefits – Group LTD

• Usual Structure – Employer as Plan Sponsor and Named Fiduciary; LTD Insurer as Claim Administrator and/or Claim Fiduciary

• Both, Along with Plan Itself, Will Often Be Named as Defendants

• Need Separate Counsel?

• Impact of Recovery Sought by the Plaintiff?

• Impact of a Claim for ERISA Penalties?

• Impact of Amara Remedies?

34

#ERISA

A Variation: Group Life

Provided by Insurer

• Usual Structure – Employer as Plan Sponsor and Named Fiduciary; LTD Insurer as Claim Administrator and/or Claim Fiduciary

• Both, Along with Plan Itself, Will Often Be Named as Defendants

• Need Separate Counsel?

• The Conversion Coverage War Story:

* What Is Conversion Coverage?

* What Does the Plan Say About Notice to Employee/Participant?

* Amara Remedies: Who Is Responsible for Not Informing or Wrongly Informing Participant About Conversion Rights?

* Is there a Conflict Requiring Separate Counsel?

35

#ERISA

Ethical Issues with Smaller

Clients • Ethical Issues in Representing Participants or Smaller

Plans with Less Internal Expertise

• State Rules of Professional Conduct/Lawyer Ethical Rules

• Informed Consent

• Meaning in this Context

• Exposure, Risks, and Obligations

• The 204(h) War Story

36

#ERISA

The Engagement Letter

• What Does All of This Mean for the Engagement Letter?

• Identify the client

• Identify the scope

37

#ERISA

ETHICAL ISSUES AND THE FIDUCIARY EXCEPTION

Joseph M. Hamilton

Partner

Mirick O’Connell

Stephen D. Rosenberg

Of Counsel

The Wagner Law Group

Questions?

Thank You.