Client Alerts & Insights
DOL Takes Action to Rescind the Persuader Rule
May 31, 2017
Authored By:
In March 2016, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) published a revised “Persuader Rule” requiring attorneys involved in union organizational campaigns to file broad public financial disclosures about their own and their law firm’s compensation related to these efforts. Traditionally, persuader activity had to be publically reported only if an attorney communicated directly with a client’s employees regarding union activity. The revision expanded these public reporting requirements to include any advice that “indirectly persuades” a client’s employees regarding union organizing and collective bargaining, even if the persuader had no direct contact with employees. The revisions were aimed at, among other things, discouraging law firms from being involved in organizational campaigns to avoid such disclosures. The revisions, however, also infringed on the attorney-client privilege.
The DOL’s revised Persuader Rule was barred by a permanent injunction on November 16, 2016, when a Texas court expressed concern that attorneys would be forced to violate the attorney-client privilege by disclosing clients’ identities, fee arrangements, and the nature of the advice and services provided. Under President Obama, the DOL appealed this decision but the Trump Administration had not addressed this issue until last week. The DOL now has submitted a proposed rule designed to rescind the Persuader Rule – signaling a clear position change from the previous administration. The new Secretary of Labor, Alexander Acosta, confirmed the change when he publicly announced this rule as a step to rescind the Persuader Rule in an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal. While the rulemaking process eventually will require soliciting and weighing public comments, the outcome is expected to be the elimination of the Obama-Era Persuader Rule.
For more information on this topic please contact a member of our Labor & Employment Practice Group.
Eric Baisden at 216.363.4676 or ebaisden@beneschlaw.com
Pete Kirsanow at 216.363.4481 or pkirsanow@beneschlaw.com
Shannon Byrne at 216.363.4578 or sbyrne@beneschlaw.com
Latest News
The Coming State-Law Litigation Wave of 2026-27: “Subscription Trap” Class Actions
The subscription economy keeps growing—and so does the wave of class-action litigation targeting it. While the FTC’s regulatory efforts have drawn headlines, private class actions under state laws pose an even greater exposure risk.
Updates to Fees and Grace Periods for Nonimmigrant Visas
Starting September 9, 2026, the 9-11 Response Biometric Entry-Exit Fee will apply to H-1B and L-1 extension petitions filed by employers subject to the fee. Prior to the new rule, the fee was only required for (1) initial grant of status to a foreign national seeking H-1B or L-1 status and (2) a change of employer in the same status.
Third Circuit Decision Reshapes Creditor Standing in Successor Liability Disputes
The Third Circuit recently held that when determining whether a successor liability claim belongs to a bankruptcy estate, the key question is whether the claim seeks to remedy harm suffered by all creditors collectively or a unique injury suffered by a specific creditor. The fact that creditors may be permitted to bring the claim outside of bankruptcy is not, by itself, determinative.
CMS Proposes Sweeping Restrictions on Remote Patient Monitoring: The Outsourcing Ban, Reimbursement Revaluation and Potential Code Consolidation in the CY 2027 Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule
CMS’s CY 2027 Proposed Rule would significantly restrict Medicare reimbursement for Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) and Remote Therapeutic Monitoring (RTM), including banning outsourced clinical staffing, adding new patient-relationship and initiating-visit requirements, reducing certain reimbursement rates, and exploring consolidation of existing billing codes.