Have you ever had a client misuse your work to unfairly influence a third person?

[Peter Gulia]

Have you ever had a client misuse your work to unfairly influence a third person?

The professional-conduct code of the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries and other divisions of the American Retirement Association includes this:

“A Stakeholder [a Member or a Credential Holder] shall not perform Professional Services when the Stakeholder has reason to believe that they may be altered in a material way or may be used to violate or evade the Law. The Stakeholder should recognize the risk that materials prepared by the Stakeholder could be misquoted, misinterpreted, or otherwise misused by another party to influence the actions of a third party{,} and should take reasonable steps to ensure that the material is presented fairly and that the sources of the material are identified.” Am. Ret. Ass’n, Code of Pro. Conduct, Control of Work Product (amended May 2026), https://fcwpol.files.cmp.optimizely.com/download/cea33626560611f18c27b2e7a7a4a6b0.

In your real-world experience, how often does it happen that something you wrote or compiled was used with a person beyond your client?

Was your writing misused?

Did someone use your materials to persuade a person beyond your client that you support a conclusion, opinion, or advice that’s not your advice?

When someone used your materials to persuade a person beyond your client that you support a conclusion you did not express, do you feel you had failed to prepare for the risk that your work could be misused?

Or, would the misuse have happened no matter how carefully you expressed your work?

Do you think what the rule asks is fair to the professional?

Should a professional have a duty to guard against the possibility that someone other than one’s client misunderstands your work you presented to your client?

And, most important, why or why not?

[Paul I]

The rule is fair, and also highly subjective since it addresses making judgement calls for when there is a "reason to believe" work product may be altered, and for when to take "reasonable steps to ensure the material is presented fairly and that the sources of the material are identified".

Our profession often deals with highly technical and highly regulated plans, and we serve clients and other service providers who often have much less knowledge about the subject matter.  The motivation sometimes for HR/payroll is to give the boss the answer they think the boss wants to hear, and the motivation for brokers/financial advisers sometimes is to give the client the answer they think the client wants to hear.  If only these individuals would repeat to themselves advice from Dirty Harry that "a man has got to know his limitations."

Many firms require both peer review and mandatory disclaimers for written materials produced by an engagement, and this provides the opportunity to create boundaries for the use of the material. This is more or less a protective measure for the firm.

We prefer take steps to identify who is asking for information, attempt to be able to work directly with them to understand the request, and prefer to have a conversation with them to review written deliverables.  This approach at times has revealed misrepresentations of our work, and in those situations we now have "reason to believe" certain individuals will misrepresent our work.  In this case, we inform the client (assuming they are not the one making misrepresentations) that we will only work directly with them and why this is the case.  If it is a third party who made the misrepresentations, we will no longer work with them.

It is worth noting that some of the discussions on BenefitsLink appear to be fishing expeditions for support for a desired answer.  While there is a standard disclaimer about the postings, I applaud all of our colleagues to make an effort to educate, document, reference and note the limitations of their postings, as well as being willing to correct or clarify any postings that may be off track. 

[Peter Gulia]

Paul I, thank you; your explanation is valuable information.

I like your observations about being mindful of opportunities for misuse within a client.

BenefitsLink neighbors:

About a disclaimer or warning, is it common for a TPA’s written material to include a warning that it is only for the named client’s use, and no one else may use it or rely on it?

Is a warning like that enough to be “reasonable steps” to guard against risks of misuse?

Is there something more a professional ought to do?

(I promise not to misuse anything you share with me. And I ask only to support my teaching.)