The Rosenbaum Law Firm P.C. Blog

If you’re old enough to flip burgers, serve coffee, or serve your country at 18, you should be able to save for retirement too.

That’s why I fully support the bipartisan Helping Young Americans Save for Retirement Act (H.R. 4718). This bill would require employers to open up their 401(k) plans to workers as young as 18. It’s common sense. Right now, too many employers still use age 21 as a barrier, shutting out young adults during three of the most valuable years for compound interest.

We always say start early, so let’s back that up with action. This bill doesn’t just expand access; it smartly avoids punishing employers near audit thresholds by excluding these new participants from audits for five years. It’s policy that understands the real world.

This isn’t a partisan issue. It’s a fairness issue. If we want to close the generational wealth gap, we need to let young workers build wealth in the first place.

I started working young. A lot of us did. And I wish I had the opportunity to start saving sooner. This bill gives the next generation that chance.

Let them save.

Word on the street is that President Trump plans to issue an executive order promoting private equity and other private investments in 401(k) plans. While he can’t mandate it, he can certainly nudge it, and that’s exactly what’s expected. The idea? Let everyday investors access the same high-return opportunities the big guys get.

Sounds great… until you read the fine print.

Private equity is already technically allowed in 401(k) plans, but only a small fraction of plan sponsors offer it, for good reason. These investments are expensive, illiquid, complex, and opaque. They’re a square peg in a round ERISA hole.

Supporters argue higher returns justify the risk. But when participants need hardship withdrawals or predictable income in retirement, illiquidity becomes a real problem. And let’s not forget: high fees + opaque assets = litigation bait.

The market has changed. Rising interest rates have crushed PE returns lately. From mid-2022 to mid-2024, private equity returned 6.8% annually, while the S&P 500 did 12%. So much for the “illiquidity premium.”

Fiduciaries thinking about jumping into the PE pool need to know: the water’s deep, murky, and full of lawyers. If you’re not ready to do the due diligence dance with clear benchmarks, transparent fees, and airtight documentation, sit this one out.

Adding alts isn’t impossible, it’s just risky. And as we all know in the 401(k) world, risk without process equals liability.

The Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) just dropped an RFI (RIN 1210–AC10) and some limited guidance on pooled employer plans (PEPs), asking for public input, especially from small employers. If you’re a small business or work with them, pay attention.

PEPs, born out of the SECURE Act in 2019, are still the new kid in the retirement plan world. The DOL is worried that small businesses don’t know enough about them or how ERISA applies. So, they’re asking: What’s holding you back? Is it awareness? Fiduciary fears? Confusing marketing?

They’re also providing some clarity: even in a PEP, employers retain fiduciary responsibility for investments unless the PEP delegates that role to a 3(38) fiduciary. If that happens, the employer has to monitor the PEP, not the investments directly. Simple? Not really. But important? Absolutely.

The DOL gives solid (if basic) advice: Know your PPP, understand the investments, ask about fees and liabilities, and monitor the PEP. No autopilot allowed.

Most importantly, they’re exploring whether to create a safe harbor for small employers that could limit fiduciary exposure if certain conditions are met, like requiring an unaffiliated 3(38), banning proprietary funds, or setting fee limits.

If you care about how PEPs evolve—and how small businesses can adopt them responsibly—now is the time to speak up. Comments are due 60 days after the RFI hits the Federal Register (July 29). Don’t let others shape the rules while you stay silent.

You can cut corners in business. You can play fast and loose with your vendor contracts. You can even get away with sloppy recordkeeping—at least for a while. But when you mess with employee 401(k) contributions, you’re not playing games anymore—you’re playing with fire. And in Micone v. iProcess Online, Inc., the fire finally burned everything down.

In a brutal but unsurprising decision out of the District of Maryland, the Court ruled in favor of the Department of Labor (DOL), after the employer, not only the plan sponsor but also the plan administrator—ghosted the case completely. No response, no defense, no apology. Just silence. That’s not a strategy; that’s a confession.

What Went Wrong—And How It All Fell Apart

According to the DOL, the fiduciaries at iProcess Online failed in the most fundamental way: they didn’t deposit participant contributions into the 401(k) trust. Instead, they commingled those funds, over $175,000 withheld from employee paychecks across seven years—with the company’s general assets. In plain English? They treated employees’ retirement money like a piggy bank for operating expenses.

That’s not just bad practice, it’s a textbook breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. Participant contributions become plan assets as soon as they can be “reasonably segregated” from employer funds. The law is crystal clear. You don’t borrow against it. You don’t delay. You don’t “float” the money for other business needs. You deposit it. Promptly. Period.

But that’s not all. iProcess also failed to make required employer matching contributions and didn’t process participant distribution requests in a timely manner. The company’s negligence was so egregious that the Court not only ruled in the DOL’s favor—it appointed an independent fiduciary to clean up the mess, to be paid out of the pockets of the very fiduciaries who made it.

Oh, and did I mention the company officer had already been convicted of embezzlement and was staring down additional lawsuits from plan participants? The whole story reads like a fiduciary horror show.

Joint and Several Liability: The Final Nail

The Court didn’t just slap the company on the wrist and walk away. It imposed joint and several liability on the fiduciaries for more than $100,000 in remaining damages—money that must be paid within 60 days. That means each fiduciary is on the hook for the entire amount, not just their “share.” There’s no safe harbor here. No ducking responsibility. And to ensure the safety of other retirement plans, the Court barred the individuals involved from serving in any ERISA fiduciary capacity going forward.

That’s not just accountability, it’s professional exile.

The Message for Plan Sponsors: Pay Attention or Pay the Price

If you’re a business owner, a CFO, an HR manager, or anyone with fiduciary responsibility over a retirement plan—this case should give you chills. Because the story here isn’t just about one company’s failure. It’s about what happens when fiduciary oversight breaks down entirely.

The DOL is watching. Participants are empowered. And when things go wrong, the consequences are swift and severe.

Here’s what this case reminds us:

1. Participant contributions are sacred. Once that money comes out of an employee’s paycheck, it’s no longer yours. Delay in depositing it into the plan is not a harmless administrative hiccup, it’s a potential fiduciary breach.

2. Commingling plan assets is never acceptable. This isn’t a gray area. It’s black-letter law. Your business accounts and the plan’s accounts are two different worlds. Don’t cross the streams.

3. Fiduciary responsibility is personal. You can’t hide behind your company’s logo. If you serve as a fiduciary and the plan suffers because of your breach, you’re on the hook, personally.

4. Ignoring the problem doesn’t make it go away. iProcess didn’t show up to court. The Court showed up anyway, with a judgment, with penalties, and with a permanent ban from ERISA service.

Don’t Be a Micone

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: your 401(k) plan isn’t just a perk—it’s a fiduciary minefield. You don’t have to be perfect, but you do have to take your responsibilities seriously. That means timely deposits. Clear documentation. Active oversight. And when in doubt? Ask for help before the DOL shows up with a lawsuit and a court-appointed fiduciary.

Because once you lose the trust of your employees—and your grip on compliance—it’s not just your retirement plan that’s in trouble. It’s your reputation, your wallet, and in some cases, your freedom.

Don’t be Micone. Be the fiduciary your employees deserve.

If you’re a TPA and you’re not talking to your small business clients about SEP-IRAs, you’re missing the plot. But if you’re only talking about SEP-IRAs, you’re missing the opportunity.

I’ve always said that plan providers, especially TPAs, need to be more than form-fillers. You’re supposed to be consultants, strategists, educators. And when it comes to SEP-IRAs, too many of you are stuck in default mode: “Oh, they’re small. They can’t afford a 401(k). Just go with the SEP.”

Let me be blunt. That kind of thinking is lazy. And it’s bad for business, for yours and for your clients’.

The Case For SEP-IRAs (Yes, There Is One)

I get it. SEP-IRAs are easy. No Form 5500. No discrimination testing. No complicated eligibility rules. You write a check and move on. For sole props or tiny shops with no employees, they’re often a great fit. They let high-income earners sock away up to 25% of compensation (capped at $69,000 in 2024), without the administrative lift of a qualified plan.

As a gateway, SEP-IRAs make sense. They’re the training wheels of employer-sponsored retirement plans. But the problem is too many employers, and too many plan providers—never take the training wheels off.

Here’s the Rub: Employees Change the Equation

If your client has employees, a SEP-IRA starts to make a lot less sense. Why? Because every single eligible employee has to receive the same percentage contribution. There’s no flexibility. No favoring owners. No incentive structure. You’re giving away benefits like Oprah: “You get 25%! And YOU get 25%!”

Think about that. In a SEP, there’s no matching, no profit-sharing tiers, no vesting schedules. It’s one-size-fits-all, which sounds fair—until the business owner realizes they’re writing fat checks to every employee without any tools to retain or reward their top people.

Compare that with a 401(k)—especially one designed by a smart TPA. Now you’ve got real flexibility:

· Matching formulas that drive participation.

· Profit-sharing allocations that favor older, higher-compensated owners.

· Vesting schedules that reward loyalty.

· Automatic enrollment, Roth options, safe harbor designs—the list goes on.

Yes, there’s more work. But that’s what you’re here for.

Your Job Is to Look Around the Corner

Here’s where TPAs need to step up. Don’t just take the easy sale. If your client has more than one employee, or plans to hire more, the SEP-IRA is a temporary fix at best, and a costly mistake at worst.

Your value is not in processing plan documents. Your value is in showing clients how to maximize tax efficiency, build wealth, and incentivize talent. You don’t do that by rubber-stamping SEP-IRAs every time a CPA calls.

And speaking of CPAs, God bless ’em, but many are still stuck in the “SEP is simple, SEP is safe” mindset. That’s your moment. That’s your chance to be the expert in the room. Educate the CPA. Educate the client. Show them the numbers. Show them what a cross-tested 401(k) design could do. Show them how a solo 401(k) could outperform a SEP for owner-only plans with side-business income. Just show up.

A TPA’s Takeaway

If you’re serious about growing your practice and helping clients make smart decisions, you’ve got to move beyond “easy.” SEP-IRAs are fine, but they are not the answer for everyone. In fact, they’re often a sign that no one’s asking the hard questions.

So ask them.

Ask if the employer is looking to reward and retain employees. Ask if they want more control over contributions. Ask what their growth plans are. And if they say “I don’t know,” good—that’s your opening.

The SEP-IRA is not your enemy. But it’s not your finish line either. It’s a tool. Use it wisely. Then upgrade the client when the time is right.

Because you’re not just a TPA. You’re the architect of the retirement strategy. And every architect knows: the foundation matters, but the real magic is in the design.

Let me start with a confession: I love Bitcoin. I admire what it represents—decentralization, monetary freedom, borderless transactions, and the kind of disruption that makes traditional finance sweat. I hold it, I follow it, and I believe digital assets have a future in the broader investment world.

But here’s the other side of that coin, pun intended: I do not believe Bitcoin, or any other cryptocurrency, belongs in your 401(k) plan. Not now. Not yet. Maybe not ever.

Yes, I’ve read the headlines. The SEC’s 2025 regulatory pivot under Commissioner Hester Peirce’s Crypto Task Force is a bold move—removing outdated restrictions, issuing clarifications on staking and stablecoins, and even walking back the 2019 Joint Statement with FINRA. It’s a new era of regulatory clarity, and for crypto diehards, it feels like Christmas in July. Add in the DOL’s quiet about-face on crypto guidance, whispers of executive orders, and Fidelity’s rollout of crypto-enabled retirement accounts—and suddenly, digital assets aren’t fringe anymore. They’re knocking on the front door of mainstream retirement savings.

But here’s the rub: just because we can include crypto in 401(k) plans doesn’t mean we should.

401(k) Plans Are a Fiduciary Fortress, Not a Risk Playground

Let’s remember what 401(k) plans are. They are not speculative vehicles. They’re not where you chase moonshots. They are the slow, boring, tax-advantaged path to retirement. They are governed by ERISA, one of the most rigid, unforgiving regulatory frameworks out there. Every decision a fiduciary makes must be in the best interest of plan participants—not the loudest investor in the break room or the finance bro who read one Michael Saylor thread too many.

Bitcoin doesn’t break the mold—it shatters it. Its volatility, lack of intrinsic value, and reliance on market sentiment make it the exact opposite of what ERISA demands: prudence, stability, and predictability.

The Fiduciary Minefield Is Real

I don’t care how many clarifying statements the SEC or DOL issue. If you’re a plan sponsor and you offer crypto as an investment option in your 401(k), you’re volunteering to be a guinea pig for litigation. Because when Bitcoin drops 40% in a week—and it will—plaintiffs’ attorneys will come knocking. “Why did you offer such a risky asset?” “What due diligence did you perform?” “Where was the risk disclosure?”

Offering a volatile, poorly understood asset in a retirement plan is not fiduciary innovation—it’s fiduciary roulette.

Let’s Talk About Custody and Complexity

Sure, Fidelity and Coinbase Institutional have custody solutions. But let’s not kid ourselves: this isn’t buying an S&P 500 index fund. Crypto custody has its own unique risks, from hot wallet hacks to private key mismanagement to regulatory shifts that can freeze platforms overnight. We’re asking average American workers to navigate a minefield that even hedge funds struggle with.

Add to that the complexity of staking, forks, airdrops, meme coins, and evolving tax treatment, and suddenly you’ve built a participant education nightmare. Is this the world you want to drop your payroll deductions into?

Yes, There Are Benefits—But They Belong Outside the Plan

I get it. The case for crypto isn’t imaginary:

· Diversification? Check.

· Inflation hedge? Debatable, but okay.

· Exposure to financial innovation? Absolutely.

But that doesn’t mean it belongs in a tax-qualified, fiduciary-heavy vehicle like a 401(k). Want crypto exposure? Fine. Use a brokerage account. Use a Roth IRA with a self-directed option. Use your discretionary income. But don’t use the plan designed to be the financial lifeline for someone’s retirement.

Innovation Is Welcome—but Discipline Is Non-Negotiable

We are entering a new phase in retirement planning. Tokenized securities, blockchain infrastructure, and digital rails are here to stay. I’m not anti-crypto. I’m anti-complacency. I’m anti-fiduciary irresponsibility.

Crypto in 401(k) plans may one day be viable. But today? It’s a shiny object, and chasing it puts participants—and sponsors—at unnecessary risk. A conservative 1%–5% allocation doesn’t fix the fundamental issue: volatility and complexity don’t mix with retirement plans.

The Bottom Line

Bitcoin may be a beautiful, brilliant, world-changing asset. But your 401(k) plan is not the place to explore that beauty. It’s not a sandbox. It’s not an experiment. It’s a promise. A promise to act in the best interest of employees who just want to retire with dignity.

So let’s do them a favor and keep crypto where it belongs, for now, on the outside looking in.

I love Bitcoin. I love private equity. They’re two of my favorite investments, personally. But when it comes to 401(k) plan participants? I hate them. Not because the asset classes themselves are bad, they’re not. But because plan participants, by and large, make classic investing mistakes that alternative assets can make even worse.

Let me explain.

When you give everyday plan participants access to high-risk, low-liquidity investments, you’re handing a loaded gun to someone who thinks the safety’s on because the brochure said “diversification.” Most participants already struggle with things like chasing returns, buying high after something’s made headlines, and bailing out after a dip, locking in losses. They don’t understand time horizons, liquidity constraints, or what a capital call even is. And now we’re going to toss them the keys to private equity and Bitcoin in their retirement accounts?

The new Trump executive order that “broadens access to alternative assets in 401(k) plans” might look like a win for diversification and freedom of choice. And for a sophisticated investor with a financial advisor and a long investment horizon, it might be. But let’s not kid ourselves: most participants aren’t calling the shots with long-term strategy in mind. They’re reacting. They’re panicking. They’re following headlines, not fundamentals.

This isn’t about being a gatekeeper. It’s about being a fiduciary.

As a fiduciary, I have to ask: is this in the best interest of the participants, or is it a win for asset managers who see a new pool of capital to dip into? Because if it’s the latter, and it feels like the latter, then shame on us. Plan sponsors shouldn’t chase the flavor of the month or cave to pressure from providers who see dollar signs instead of people.

Alternative investments have their place. But for most participants, that place is outside their 401(k). Let’s not confuse optionality with responsibility.

Schwab’s latest 2025 RIA Benchmarking Study—based on self-reported data from approximately 1,288 independent advisory firms holding over $2.4 trillion in client assets—delivers powerful insights into what’s driving growth, efficiency, and performance in the RIA space today

1. Growth: Organic Remains King

Despite market swings, organic growth continues to fuel RIA expansion. The study shows median firm AUM rose by roughly 16.6%, revenue jumped by 17.6%, and client growth climbed nearly 4.8% in 2024. For Top Performing Firms, organic growth accounted for about 12.5% of total gains, double that of typical firms And here’s the kicker: firms with written strategic plans, defined client personas, integrated marketing efforts, and referral strategies saw 67% more new clients and 68% more new client assets than their peers. That’s not casual talk, it’s data. If your firm’s growth plan isn’t documented, it’s not really a plan.

2. Client Experience and Personalization: The New Differentiator

Nearly all firms, 95% are prioritizing personalization. Top Performing Firms lean into client segmentation, persona-driven service models, and AI-assisted workflows. Firms leveraging AI for meeting notes, CRM automation, or marketing copy are positioning themselves for deeper, more meaningful client engagement.

3. Talent Strategy: It’s a Growth Engine

Hiring is surging: nearly 78% of firms reported adding staff in 2024, making talent acquisition the second-highest strategic priority behind growth. Compensation in the industry is up roughly 17% over five years, and forward-thinking firms are offering mentorship, equity participation, and professional development programs, not just a higher paycheck.

4. Technology & AI: From Nice-to-Have to Non-Negotiable

RIAs are no longer optional users, they’re essential users of modern tech. About 68% of firms reported using AI tools in some capacity to streamline operations and deliver better client service. If your firm still sees technology as a backend afterthought, you’re missing out on one of the strongest competitive levers available today.

What It All Means: Strategy with Substance

Build the Game Plan

A written strategic plan isn’t just recommended, it’s a requirement if you want to play in the top tier. Firms without formal marketing plans, client personas, or referral playbooks are leaving growth on the table.

Focus on Trusted Relationships

Retention remains high, around 97% historically for legacy firms—with growth driven by referrals and deeper relationships. Delivering a personalized client experience is where scale meets trust.

Hire Smart, Not Just Fast

Competitive compensation helps, but so does culture, mentorship, and career development. Firms that invest in talent holistically are outperforming on growth, retention, and client service metrics.

Adopt AI with Purpose

AI is no longer futuristic. Advisors leveraging AI for client insights, meeting prep, or internal processes are building scalable businesses that can deliver higher-touch service efficiently.

A Parting Thought

Let’s cut to the chase: the 2025 Schwab RIA Benchmarking Study is less about vanity stats and more about cutting-edge strategy. It confirms what many successful firms already know—but too many ignore—that disciplined planning, client-centricity, talent focus, and tech adoption aren’t just buzzwords; they’re the foundation of growth. RIAs that still think “relationships work themselves out,” “we don’t need a strategic plan,” or “we’ll hire people as needed” are behind the curve. To join the ranks of Top Performing Firms, put pen to paper. Draft that client persona. Build that referral machine. Decide today whether you’re in the growth business, or just spinning wheels.This isn’t Schwab marketing, it’s evidence-based guidance drawn from $2.4 trillion of RIA data. If you’re serious about scaling, read the study. Use the benchmarking tools. And then do the work. Because data, discipline, and decisive execution separate the winners from the rest.

Sometimes, in the strange world of ERISA litigation, you get a surprise. And in Hutchins v. Hewlett Packard, we got one: the Department of Labor, yes, that DOL, the one whose name alone strikes fear into the heart of many plan sponsors, has filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of the employer.

That’s right. The DOL didn’t sue. It wasn’t a party. But in the first appellate-level case tackling forfeiture allocation under ERISA, the DOL felt compelled to jump in, not on the side of the plaintiffs, which is usually the case, but on the side of HP.

Let’s be clear: this is not the DOL turning into the employer’s best friend. The Department even acknowledged it had never weighed in on this issue before. And courts, rightfully, don’t like when agencies attempt to make law through litigation rather than through proper rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. But in this case, the DOL appears to be saying: “We can’t wait for years of notice and comment and inter-agency politics while litigation explodes across the country like brushfire.”

Forfeiture litigation isn’t new, but what’s changed is volume. We’re now talking about fifty-plus active cases, all attacking the use of plan forfeitures, often arguing they should’ve reduced employer contributions instead of covering plan administrative expenses. While district courts have generally sided with employers, the trickle of cases hasn’t slowed. That’s where the DOL likely felt pressure: a growing patchwork of inconsistent decisions and no clear, authoritative guidance.

What makes this case even more fascinating is that the DOL’s position wasn’t a given. This is the same Department that’s often criticized for aggressively siding with plan participants and making fiduciaries jump through regulatory flaming hoops. So when they side with the defense, you pay attention.

Now, let’s talk strategy. The DOL’s brief leaned heavily on the language of the plan document. That’s not surprising. In ERISA land, the plan document is gospel. If the plan explicitly allows forfeitures to pay for admin expenses, then that’s the rule. The DOL, to its credit, stuck to that orthodoxy. They also noted the plaintiffs’ case was thin on specifics, even after being amended. In litigation, that’s everything.

And because this is the Ninth Circuit, the appellate court for the Wild West of ERISA litigation, the DOL’s focus was understandably narrow, sticking to that Circuit’s precedent. Still, this brief is a shot across the bow to plaintiffs everywhere, and it signals that the DOL and the IRS are now singing from the same hymnal. That’s important, because some practitioners were rightly concerned that one agency might go rogue.

Perhaps the most compelling part of the DOL’s argument is their observation about the potential conflict between plan sponsors and plan administrators when forfeitures are involved. If a fiduciary is forced to use forfeitures to reduce employer contributions, rather than pay plan expenses, it puts them in a bind, because funding decisions belong to the plan sponsor (the

settlor), not the fiduciary. It’s the kind of nuance that ERISA nerds (like me) find thrilling and that casual readers find exhausting.

But before plan sponsors start celebrating or sending fruit baskets to the DOL, let’s pump the brakes. This is just a brief. The Ninth Circuit hasn’t ruled yet. They could ignore the DOL’s argument entirely. It’s happened before. And even if the court agrees, the ruling only binds courts in the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs’ lawyers in other circuits may not be deterred.

Still, this changes the game. The DOL has sent a signal: not every forfeiture allocation claim is going to fly. If you’re a fiduciary sitting on pins and needles because your forfeiture allocation is under attack, this might be the first decent night’s sleep you’ve had in a while. You’re not in the clear—but you’re not alone either.

Ultimately, what we have here is the DOL doing something pragmatic and, dare I say, refreshingly reasonable. They saw a litigation trend spiraling out of control, recognized the lack of regulatory clarity, and tried to inject some order. That doesn’t mean we’re headed for a golden age of DOL-employer camaraderie, but in a litigation climate that often feels like trench warfare, it’s nice to see a little common sense.

So for now, plan sponsors, keep doing what you’re doing, dotting the i’s, crossing the t’s, and following your plan document to the letter. And maybe, just maybe, don’t curse the DOL under your breath today. They might’ve just saved you from your next ERISA headache.

There’s a hard truth about being a plan sponsor or a plan provider: you can be doing everything right and still get sued. That’s the world we live in—especially in the retirement plan space. You can dot every “i,” cross every “t,” and follow ERISA to the letter, but none of that guarantees you’ll avoid a courtroom or, at the very least, a legal headache.

I’ve seen it firsthand. A plan sponsor who took their fiduciary duties seriously—reviewed fees regularly, kept great documentation, and ran a tight ship—still got hit with a lawsuit. Why? Because a participant got confused or upset about something they didn’t understand, and they found a lawyer who was happy to take the case. And guess what? It didn’t matter that the claims had no merit. The lawsuit still needed to be defended. Time was wasted. Legal fees piled up. And stress levels skyrocketed.

I know a fiduciary who got sued not for something they did, but for something their predecessor did—a guy who literally stole plan assets the year before. No connection, no fault, no wrongdoing—just bad luck and bad timing. That’s what happens when an overly aggressive attorney is looking to make a name or a buck.

We like to believe that competence is protection, and to an extent, it is. If you’re a plan sponsor or provider doing your job well, you’ll likely come out on the other side of litigation unscathed. But that doesn’t mean you won’t have to go through it. Being right doesn’t prevent the lawsuit. It just improves your odds once you’re in it.

So yes, there are ways to reduce your risk:

· Document everything.

· Run regular fee benchmarking.

· Stay on top of investments.

· Communicate clearly with participants.

· Hire experienced service providers.

But let’s be clear—you can reduce risk, but you can’t eliminate it. You can do everything right and still find yourself on the receiving end of a complaint because someone misread a statement or didn’t update their address or just didn’t like what they saw in their account balance.

In the retirement plan world, doing a good job isn’t always enough. It just means you’ll have a strong defense when the lawsuit comes—which, unfortunately, is sometimes the best we can hope for.