AHPension Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 After representing the Pension Board for nearly a decade, the attorney in question admitted his law firm had previously represented the Plan Sponsor during a restatement of the Plan Document. Several months later, when the attorney was asked to provide written disclosure of the services his law firm had provided the Plan Sponsor, he now claimed his law firm had always represented the Pension Board. The attorney added, the prior Pension Board had authorized his law firm to work with the Plan Sponsor's representative to restate the Plan Document. However, provided that prior Pension Board was a public body, as defined by Michigan law, the public record of that Board should support the attorney's written disclosure - but does not. Nowhere in that Pension Board's public record does such an authorization exist. This may be a ridiculous question, but is this a conflict of interst the current Pension Board should deal with?
david rigby Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 Instead of advice from these Message Boards, you need another attorney. I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now