WHD’s Eckhardt puts the pieces together for clients

Listen to this article

Growing up, David Eckhardt admits he liked knowing the rules.

“Once I got to law school I realized that employee benefits were basically one big set of rules,” said Eckhardt, of Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek in Milwaukee. “Working with employee benefits, ERISA and the tax code allows me to be creative and work within the rules to help my clients come up with the best solution.”

Eckhardt’s clients come to him with a wide range of questions covering everything from health insurance to how the tax code affects employees’ compensation packages.

“Dealing with all these different rules and regulations is like dealing with a big puzzle and I think solving puzzles is fun,” he said. “It’s all about working with businesses to do what they want in the confines of the law.”

Employee law constantly changes, which is a challenge, Eckhardt said.

“Sometimes there’s a steep learning curve. They don’t teach all this stuff in law school,” he said.

Eckhardt reads heavily to stay updated on the various law changes. He said the Affordable Care Act is one of those constantly changing areas.

“I’ve become kind of an expert on the ACA. It was coming out just as I started practicing, so I had just as much experience as everyone else,” Eckhardt said. “These are all complicated issues that affect employees and are also important to businesses.”

Employee benefits issues affect businesses of all sizes and nearly all of them need help navigating them correctly, Eckhardt said.

“There’s a lot of complicated issues out there for businesses that are important and it’s essential that they get it right,” he said.

Wisconsin Law Journal: What makes your work important to you?
David Eckhardt: As an employee benefits attorney, my work is important because it involves complicated issues that have a real impact on my clients’ employees. Many times issues arise that could result in negative consequences to employees. It is my job to resolve the matter in a way that is beneficial to the employer and employees.

WLJ: What do you do outside of work to deal with stress from the office?
Eckhardt: Being on a golf course is very relaxing to me. As a bonus, many opportunities come from playing a four-hour round with other businesspeople — not only new business, but the chance to get to know these individuals and how they conduct themselves, as well as the opportunity to think about challenges posed by my clients. Some of my most creative solutions have come to me while searching for a ball in the woods, proving that even a frustrating day on the course can be more productive than a day at the office.

WLJ: What’s one thing many people get wrong about what you do?
Eckhardt: Many people think what I do must be boring and dry. It is far from that. I hardly ever see the same exact issue twice. Working with the Internal Revenue Code, ERISA and other employment laws, which are constantly updated and changed, to come up with solutions for clients is like putting together a puzzle. I suppose if you don’t like puzzles it might be boring.

WLJ: What’s your favorite memory from law school?
Eckhardt: My favorite memory from law school was meeting my wife and having a great time with friends. Many of those friends have become great referral sources. There is no better time than talking business with old friends and reminiscing about the good ol’ days.

WLJ: Is there a certain case that stands out to you?
Eckhardt: A case that stands out to me in the employee benefits area is United States v. Windsor, a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding same-sex marriage. Whatever your stance on the issue, the case exemplifies that employee benefits issues can be at the center of public policy and result in complicated issues. This case certainly created a puzzle for practitioners because of the implications under various laws. For example, same-sex spouses had to be recognized for certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, but not necessarily under ERISA. Thus, companies could treat same-sex spouses differently with respect to different benefits. State employment laws and the resulting permutations on how clients were handling the impact of the case only added to the complexity.