#efta00222929
LightNews LightNews
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Parts 1-3/3 — EFTA00222929.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00222929
https://epsteinweb.org
Available in the iOS app store now!
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/epstein-web/id6758880661
EFTA00222925 | EFTA00222929 HUMPHREYS. HUTCHESON AND MOSELEY I. DONOVAN Cite s 755 F.24 lilt (19U) 1215 must reveal all of his disbursements made ty for misleading concealment of the true in connection with his labor relations advice nature of such Attorney's work in situaand services, and the persuader must spedlions involving intricate corporate confy the purpose for these disbursements. glomerate associates or, equally pressing, industry-wide labor controversies. HH & M has stipulated that it has acted Behind this judgment, of course, was the as a persuader, yet it contends that the congressional conviction that quite withfirm should be excused from filing the reout regard to the motives or methods of ports, especially the annual report. HH & particular individuals engaging in it, the M first argues that section 203(b) of the persuader business was detrimental to statute is inapplicable to the firm because good labor relations and the continued it did not act as a covert middleman. It is public interest Since a principal object undisputed that the HH & M partners idenof LMRDA was neutralizing the evils of tified themselves as attorneys representing Southern Silk management before speaking persuaders, it was quite legitimate and to its employees. HH & M contends that consistent with the Act's main sanction the LMRDA is aimed at covert manageof goldfishbowl publicity to turn the ment middlemen who engage in activities spotlight on the lawyer who wanted not such as spying, bribery and influence pedonly to serve clients in labor relations dling rather than at persuaders who openly matters encompassed within § 203(c) but engage in "legitimate" persuasive activities who wanted also to wander into the legissuch as the speeches given by the partners latively suspect field of a persuader. of the firm who were disclosed persuaders. It at 650 (footnotes omitted). We find the (1,21 When enacting the LMRDA, Con- fact that the attorneys identified themgress did not distinguish between disclosed selves to the Southern Silk employees did and undisclosed persuaders or between le- not remove them from the ambit of LMRDA gitimate and nefarious persuasive activi- section 203(b). ties. Rather, Congress determined that B. persuasion itself was a suspect activity and (3, 4] Appellant contends that even if it concluded that the possible evil could best be remedied through disclosure. It was is required to file the reports contemplated hoped that persuasive activity would be by section 203(b), that section 203(c) recurbed by subjecting persuaders to glaring lieves its persuader-attorneys from the nepublicity. We agree with the summation cessity of reporting information regarding of congressional intent set forth by the the clients for whom it performs no perFifth Circuit in Price' Wirtz, 412 F.2d 647 suader services. Section 203(c)' exempts persons advising an employer or represent(5th Cir.1969) (en bane): The legislative judgment that one who ing an employer before a court, agency or engages in the persuader business must administrative tribunal and persons engagbe subjected to the pressure of revealing ing in negotiations or arbitration on behalf publicity is amply justified by the diffi- of an employer from the reporting requireculty in distinguishing between those ac- ments of section 203(b). This court agrees tivities that are persuader activities and with the majority of courts 6 that find the those that are not, and by the opportuni- purpose of section 203(c) is to clarify what 7. Section 203(c) Provides: Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any employer or other person to file a report covering the services of such person by reason of his giving or agreeing to give advice to such employer or representing or agreeing to represent such employer before any court, administrative agency. or tribunal of arbitra. lion or engaging or agreeing to engage in collective bargaining on behalf of such em- ployer with respect to wages, hours, or other terms or conditions of employment or the negotiation of an agreement or any question arising thereunder. 8. See Price!. Wirtz 412 F.2d 647, 649 (5th Cir.1969) (en bane); Douglas. Wirtz 353 F.2d 30, 32 (4th Cir.1965), cert. denied 383 US 909, 86 S.Ct. 893, 15 LE4.2d 665 (1966). EFTA00222929 Epstein Web iOS app on the App Store.
April 24, 2026 at 6:39 PM