Pittsburgh Adviser Pleads Guilty to Impersonating EBSA Employee

The Department of Justice announced on Monday that a Pittsburgh-based financial adviser and loan officer pleaded guilty to falsely impersonating an employee of the Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration.

The case, USA v. Mitchell, originated in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in January 2025.

Defendant Lazaren Mitchell was charged with a single count of false impersonation of a federal officer or employee. On multiple occasions between April and June 2024, Mitchell would contact Pittsburgh-area plan sponsors, identify himself as an EBSA employee and request to review the businesses’ retirement plans to determine whether the plan was in compliance with federal regulations.

After reviewing a plan, Mitchell would identify a compliance issue and recommend that the plan sponsor terminate its current adviser and transfer the plan to him to serve as the plan administrator. Mitchell provided the business owner with a draft letter for signature—bearing the DOL seal and EBSA mailing address in Washington—that would terminate the old adviser.

According to court documents, in text messages between Mitchell and one plan sponsor, Mitchell referenced having a “final determination from the DOL” and coming to the business to retrieve “the documents for the Department of Labor inquiry.” In a text to a different sponsor, Mitchell sent a fictitious business card bearing EBSA’s name and crest, his name with the title of “Employee Benefit Advisor” and an address for a suite within Pittsburgh’s William S. Moorhead Federal Building.

Mitchell faces a maximum sentence of three years in prison, a fine of up to the greater of $250,000 or twice his gross pecuniary gain, or both. Sentencing is scheduled for March 25, 2027.

Mitchell is represented by the Office of the Federal Public Defender, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Assistant United States Attorney Brendan J. McKenna is prosecuting the case on behalf of the DOJ, which also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the DOL’s Office of Inspector General conducted the investigation.