{"id":4487,"date":"2003-06-18T21:57:39","date_gmt":"2003-06-19T01:57:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2003\/06\/18\/fiduciaries-everywhere-except"},"modified":"2012-06-06T08:29:24","modified_gmt":"2012-06-06T12:29:24","slug":"fiduciaries-everywhere-except-in-the-mirror","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2003\/06\/18\/fiduciaries-everywhere-except-in-the-mirror\/","title":{"rendered":"Fiduciaries Everywhere:  Except in the Mirror?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a name=\"a68\"><\/a><em><strong>I <\/strong><\/em>can&#8217;t help but <em>wonder what kind of fee arrangements <\/em>were made in the ERISA class actions suits that were highlighted in the blawg world and online this week. A <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.law.com\/jsp\/article.jsp?id=1055463648028\">Law.com article<\/a><\/strong> from the San Francisco <em>Recorder<\/em> described this &#8220;burgeoning arena of ERISA cases filed on behalf of company employees who lose their retirement savings when corporate scandals hit.&#8221; The cases are targeting new fiduciaries and broadening fiducial duties. <span style=\"font-family: Arial;color: #000000\"><br \/>\n<strong>.<br \/>\n<\/strong><strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.benefitscounsel.com\/archives\/000190.html\">BenefitsBlog<\/a><\/strong> (June 16, 2003) asked whether the ERISA fiduciary lawsuits are &#8220;an oasis for plaintiffs&#8217; lawyers?&#8221; <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.corplawblog.com\/archives\/000083.html\">CorpLawBlog<\/a> <\/strong>referred to them as the &#8220;Newest Happy Hunting Ground for Plaintiffs&#8217; Firms&#8221;. The <em>Recorder <\/em>article is filled with boastful quotes from plaintiffs&#8217; lawyers about the <strong>ease and size of settlements, <\/strong>and the willingness of some employers who have survived their scandals to reach an agreement.\u00a0 <em>Recorder <\/em>reporter Jason Hoppin gushes, &#8220;Imagine, if you will, an oasis for plaintiffs&#8217; lawyers, where you can make new law, the bar is friendly on both sides of the aisle, there are few competitors and, of course, huge recoveries are the norm.&#8221;<br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: Arial;color: #000000\">.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: Arial;color: #000000\">It&#8217;s great\u00a0that lawyers for employees who lost their pensions (and often their jobs) may have found a creative way to make the employees whole.\u00a0 I&#8217;m worried, however, that there may be <strong>a large hole in that whole <\/strong>&#8212; of perhaps 25%, or 33%, or 40%. When it comes to fees, you see, lawyers are too often <strong>phantom fiduciaries<\/strong>: They are superheroes with amazing powers to detect and defeat fiduciary-defendants.\u00a0 But they frequently are blind to their own duty to earn only a reasonable fee from their clients, and to fully inform those clients about the factors involved in making their fee reasonable. A lawyer&#8217;s job is to <em>help the client assert a claim.<\/em> <em>It is not to insist on a taking a large share of that claim<\/em>, in order to work for the client<em>. <\/em>[check out our <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2006\/04\/08\/contingency-fees-pt-4-ethical-duties\/\">4-part essay<\/a> on the ethical obligations involved with charging contingency fees]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: Arial;color: #000000\">.<br \/>\nIf visitors can provide me, or point me to, information about the fee arrangements in these ERISA suits, I&#8217;d appreciate it.\u00a0 I&#8217;m hoping to be pleasantly surprised by novel fee arrangements that compensate the lawyers <strong>appropriately but not outlandishly<\/strong> for their risk, creativity, and exertion.<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p><strong>P.S<\/strong>. Senator Dascle, with a dozen Democratic co-sponsors, has introduced <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/capwiz.com\/cl\/webreturn\/?url=http:\/\/thomas.loc.gov\/cgi-bin\/query\/z?c108:S.9:\">Senate Bill 9<\/a>,<\/strong> which will amend ERISA to extend fiduciary duties in the manner argued in the class action suits &#8212; and cover all <strong><em>pending<\/em> <\/strong>suits on behalf of employees against insiders and other plan fiduciaries.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: Arial;color: #000000\"><br \/>\n<\/span><span style=\"font-family: Arial;color: #000000\"><em><strong>Update<\/strong> <\/em>(6\/19\/03, 9:33 AM)<strong><em>: <\/em><\/strong>See the article in today&#8217;s <strong><em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.law.com\/jsp\/article.jsp?id=1055463669048\">New York Law Journal<\/a><\/em><\/strong><em><\/em> (via law.com), entitled <span style=\"font-family: Arial\"><em><strong>WorldCom Employee Claims Go Forward<\/strong>: Former CEO Ebbers allegedly withheld negative information about finances.<\/em> Reporter Mark Hamblett quotes U.S. District Judge Denise Cote: <\/span><\/span><span style=\"font-family: Arial\">&#8220;When a corporate insider puts on his ERISA hat, he is not assumed to have forgotten adverse information he may have acquired while acting in his corporate capacity&#8221; from <em>In Re WorldCom Inc. ERISA Litigation<\/em>, Master File 02 Civ. 4816. <\/span><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I can&#8217;t help but wonder what kind of fee arrangements were made in the ERISA class actions suits that were highlighted in the blawg world and online this week. A Law.com article from the San Francisco Recorder described this &#8220;burgeoning arena of ERISA cases filed on behalf of company employees who lose their retirement savings [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4487","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-1an","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4487","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4487"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4487\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14358,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4487\/revisions\/14358"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4487"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4487"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4487"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}