Beyond Structured Settlements

NAELA 2016 Summit

As a benchmark for planning and/or evaluating 2016 professional association educational conferences, the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) Second Annual Summit, hosted January 26-27 in Newport Beach, California, established multiple impressive standards.

Organized by Co-Chairs Michael Amoruso and Professor Roberta Flowers into a series of overlapping three-hour Immersion Sessions and one-hour Breakout Sessions, the NAELA Summit fulfilled its promise of "div[ing] deep" into real-life elder law and special needs law case situations and challenging office practices. Designed to support different types of learning, individual sessions were supplemented with workshop documents made available online in advance of the conference.

Approximately 200 NAELA members attended the Summit - including a significant number of first-time NAELA member conference attendees plus an additional 20 sponsoring exhibitors. Combining the old with the new, two of NAELA's original founding members (Michael Gilfix and Vincent Russo) appeared as featured speakers. Networking was encouraged and multiple opportunities were scheduled including a First-Time Attendee Orientation Session.

Featured Summit Sessions

Personality Evaluation - Organizational anthropologist and marketing strategist Kimberly Dodson Gilbey delivered the Summit keynote address titled "How My Communication Style Can Help My Bottom Line." As a keynote supplement, attendees were encouraged to participate in a pre-conference personality type assessment and to wear their resulting "personality type badge" throughout the conference. Combined objectives included: 1) understanding how different personality styles interact in a professional context; 2) recognizing the impact of clients' communication styles; 3) learning to recognize problems resulting from conflicting communication styles; and 4) acquiring skills to address conflicting communication styles.

Technology Training - The NAELA Summit offered three separate technology breakout sessions:

• An iOS clinic led by Scott Grossberg profiling aps specifically recommended for elder law and special needs attorneys.
• A social media introduction by Robin Krooks focused on useful sites, marketing advice and consultative resources.
• An interactive technology clinic organized by Apple representatives to teach Apple technology accessibility features.

Peer Instruction - "Peer Instruction" is an increasingly popular, interactive teaching methodology developed by Harvard Physics Professor Eric Mazur in the 1990s as an alternative to the traditional lecture format. S2KM was introduced to peer instruction by Forge Consulting, a personal injury settlement planning company which utilizes peer instruction to accelerate learning among its new employees. As described on wikipedia, peer instruction is "a student-centered approach that involves flipping the traditional classroom by moving information transfer out and moving information assimilation, or application of learning, into the classroom."

With the exception of Forge Consulting, S2KM had not witnessed or participated in any peer instruction educational exercise prior to the NAELA Summit. Without referencing the term "peer instruction", or consciously utilizing this learning methodology, both of the NAELA Summit Immersion Sessions led by Frank Johns ("Skills and Law When Serving Clients with Diminished Capacity") and Michael and Mark Gilfix ("Advanced Elder Law, Tax, and Estate Planning from Start to Finish, Part 1") represented (from S2KM's perspective) highly successful peer instruction educational prototypes worth additional evaluation and replication by NAELA. Note: S2KM was unable to attend Part 2 of the Advanced Elder Law Immersion Session led by Mark Munson.

Practice Management - Especially useful for the many Summit attendees beginning their elder law and/or special needs practice, NAELA scheduled several sessions addressing practice management topics:

• Michael Weeks - Explaining the Value of Your Fees to Clients.
• Jennifer VanderVeen - Practice Management Idea Sharing.
• Vincent Russo - Staff to Success.
• Shirley Berger Whiteneck - Communicating "Bad News" to Clients.
• Kirsten Davis - Writing Concise Letters.
• Sue Bronson and Michael Kirtland - Dealing with High Conflict Families.

Public Policy - As the professional practice of NAELA members continues to expand beyond traditional elder law to include special needs planning and personal injury settlement planning, NAELA is likewise challenged to expand its public policy focus. NAELA Public Policy Committee Co-Chairs Morris Klein and Jason Frank and Public Policy Manager David Goldfarb provided Summit attendees with an overview of potential legislative and regulatory changes that could affect their professional practice. Although the Special Needs Trust Fairness Act remains NAELA's most important lobbying priority, NAELA has proactively addressed several other public policy issues:

• Submitting comments about proposed FINRA rules relating to financial exploitation of seniors and persons with disabilities.
• Urging CMS to ban pre-dispute arbitration provisions in long-term care facility agreements.
• Recommending expanded Medicare home health coverage for persons with chronic illnesses to the Senate Finance Committee Chronic Care Working Group.
• Highlighting unanticipated harms to care giving spouses that could result from H.R. 1771 - a Bill to amend the Social Security Act to count portions of income from annuities of a community spouse as income available to institutionalized spouses for purposes of eligibility for medical assistance.
• Urging the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to issue new guidelines to ensure that HUD rental assistance providers apply consistent rules for Special Needs Trust distributions throughout the U.S.
• Submitting an amici curiae brief (jointly with the Special Needs Alliance and National Housing Law Project) in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit case of Kimberly DeCambre v. Brookline Housing Authority et al. on the issue of "whether 42 U.S.C. Section 1437a as construed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development permits a local housing authority to treat the return of principle from a resident's self-settled special needs trust as "income" for purposes of the Housing Choice Voucher Program."

Special Needs Trusts - As evidenced by separate annual conferences sponsored by Stetson and the University of Texas Law Schools, Special Needs Trusts (SNTs) continue to represent a primary focus of practice for many elder law and special needs attorneys. The NAELA Summit did not overlook this important topic offering the following related presentations:

• Stuart Zimring - Drafting SNTs.
• Patricia Kefalas Dudek - Navigating SNT Trustees Through Rough Waters.

Advanced Elder Law Review - The NAELA Summit was preceded by a two-day advanced Elder and Special Needs Law review course consisting of 14 sessions designed in part to help attendees prepare for the CELA Exam.

As a relatively new addition to professional educational conferences, the NAELA Summit significantly exceeded S2KM's expectations and should become an important educational priority for an increasing number of NAELA members.

For S2KM reporting about prior NAELA conferences as well as conferences sponsored by other professional associations addressing special needs, settlement planning and structured settlement issues, see the structured settlement wiki.

Person-Centered Planning

Although personal injury settlement planning (settlement planning) might be suggestive of "person-centered planning", (PCP) the latter term has a special meaning for disabled persons.

Surprisingly, PCP is rarely, if ever, specifically discussed during educational conferences sponsored by structured settlement, settlement planning - or even special needs - professional associations.

This omission cannot be blamed on a lack of available resources. For example, Cornell University's Employment and Disability Institute features a PCP Education Site with an overview of the PCP process, a self-study PCP course, and a compendium of downloadable resources. See also: Cornell Disability Studies, Research, Statistics.

An alternative explanation for settlement planners and structured settlement consultants might be the assumption that once a settlement occurs, and/or a structured settlement is funded, professional responsibility for matching funding with actual needs shifts to settlement trustees, guardians, special needs attorneys and social workers.

Even accepting this explanation, however, shouldn't settlement planning incorporating structures consider, or at least be consistent with, PCP and its purposes?

Of equal importance, doesn't PCP provide an alternative, educational perspective for settlement planners and structured settlement professionals to re-think such fundamental industry issues as: "know your client", "needs analysis", "best practices", "industry standards" and "product suitability", as well as "professional qualifications, responsibility and accountability"?

Frank Johns' PCP Paper

For settlement planners and structured settlement consultants seeking additional PCP background, insights and analysis, S2KM recommends a Frank Johns' paper titled "Person-Centered Planning in Guardianship: A Little Hope for the Future." Johns' 2012 paper was published in the Utah Law Review (ULR) and delivered during the Third National Guardian Summit.

Johns, a former NAELA President and Editor in Chief of the NAELA Journal, has been a popular speaker at many elder law, special needs and special needs planning conferences.

Among his contributions to structured settlements, Johns delivered a paper titled "Request for Proposals: Connecting Structured Settlement Professionals with Special Needs Attorneys" at the SSP 2008 Annual Conference. Section 6.02[2] ("Selecting Structured Settlement Consultants") of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) features and summarizes his SSP paper.

Johns premises his PCP paper upon an indictment of guardianship in the United States:

• "[W]here vulnerable citizens, those mentally ill or mentally or physically challenged, have been condemned to a perverse legal system that protects property over the person"; and
• Which "is well noted for a deep-rooted culture of paternalistic practices that rarely pursue the wants and needs of adjudicated incompetent persons."

By contrast, following the 2006 passage of Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, many other countries have replaced guardianship with "supported decision making" (a PCP-related concept) "meaning that there is no judicial process or legal intervention that removes a person’s individual rights."

Johns views PCP as a solution to the problems of guardianship in the United States. His paper describes how PCP can be incorporated into guardianship and examines the extent to which the Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act (UGPPA) and some states have incorporated PCP into guardianship.

Although he identifies several PCP definitions, including one published by CMS, Johns concludes there is no standard PCP definition. "According to experts in the field," Johns writes, PCP "is described more as a spectrum of processes based on one general philosophical background."

Compared with traditional "system-driven" guardianship, Johns views PCP as applying the principle of self-determination and establishing a vision based upon the disabled person's abilities and strengths. By contrast, Johns states, "conventional service models operate for, not with, the individuals being served" with support decisions "often focusing on deficits and negative behavior which can create a disempowered mindset."

Johns' paper describes three PCP tools with accompanying case studies:

• Important To vs. Important For Sorts - Important To "includes what people are saying with words and behavior" compared with Important For which "includes what keeps individuals safe and healthy and a valued member of community."
• Relationship Maps - which offer "an effective way of finding out who to talk to and who to listen to when a guardian is making decisions."
• Working vs. Not Working Analyses - which help to "determine what needs to change, what needs to stay the same, and what should be enhanced."

To effectively implement PCP for guardians, Johns recommends: 1) accountability and monitoring; and 2) better training and education.

This same PCP prescription might also enhance and improve structured settlement and personal injury settlement planning.

25 Questions to Evaluate Pooled Trusts

Health care reform (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), enacted on March 23, 2010, has re-defined the structured settlement and personal injury settlement consulting marketplace: whether current participants realize it - or (more probably) do not.

Among the strategic consequences of health care reform:

• An estimated 16 million more Medicaid participants - and therefore:
• More special needs trusts;
• More special needs attorneys;
• More structured settlement annuities payable to trustees.

Without focusing specifically on health care reform (not then enacted), the ASNP 2010 Annual Meeting included valuable presentations and handout resources indirectly related to health care reform, structured settlements and settlement planning/consulting.

Among those valuable presentations was Evan J. Krame's analysis titled "Not Very Special Trusts: Fixing Trusts to be Special and Using Pooled Trusts". As part of his ASNP trust analysis, Krame introduced a document he wrote titled "25 Questions to Evaluate Pooled Trusts".

In addition to his legal practice and teaching activities, Krame serves as President of Shared Horizons, Inc. Shared Horizons is trustee of the Wesley Vinner Memorial Trust (a pooled trust) serving people with disabilities in the District of Columbia and Maryland.

Krame has granted permission for S2KM to re-publish his list of 25 Questions here in S2KM blog format.

Trust Structures

• Check the Trust Agreement and Joinder Agreement? What do the documents say? For example, what powers does the trustee have?
• Is the trust approved and monitored by any state agencies?
• Who/what is really serving as the trustee? Is it the non-profit organization that created the trust or is it a third party hired to administer the trust?

Is this Trust Right for You?

• What are the costs of participation? Is there an initiation fee, an annual fee or a termination fee?
• How are the disbursements approved? What is the ease and method of disbursements? Who signs disbursement checks?
• What is the availability of advocacy on behalf of the beneficiary?
• How do they manage public benefit issues?
• How do they monitor the beneficiaries?
• Will the trust own illiquid or uncommon assets such as cars or homes?

Trust Management

• What is the reputation of the non-profit and/or trust management organizations?
• What is the organizational structure? Check on staff, space and activities.
• Who are the officers of the non-profit? What are their skills and background?
• What is the function of the board of the non-profit trustee?
• How long has the trust been in existence? Is there any reason to believe it could fail? How appropriately is the pooled trust compensated?
• How are the trust assets invested? Is there an investment policy in force that is followed? Is there an independent investment adviser? Is there an investment review committee? Is there an allocation model?
• How do they maintain separate shares? Do they uphold the duty to segregate?
• Is there liability and casualty insurance in place?
• How do they meet their duty to inform? Are statements provided to beneficiaries and state agencies (as required)?
• How do they meet their duty to account?
• How do they maintain their records? Are they precise, complete and accurate?
• How do they meet their duty of confidentiality?
• Do they have and/or employ legal counsel?
• Are there termination procedures in place?
• What is the policy as to funds at the death of a beneficiary?
• How do they handle income tax reporting?

Additional S2KM resources about settlement trusts:

• Settlement trusts re-visited
• Settlement trusts
• Single claimant 468B funds
• Selecting a settlement trustee
• Settlement trust due diligence
• Special Needs Trusts X
• Richard Halpern

ASNP 2010 Annual Meeting

The Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) hosted its 2010 Annual Meeting in Charleston, South Carolina March 18-20, 2010. More than 100 special needs attorneys participated as well as nine exhibitors. MassMutual Financial Group was the program sponsor.

The timing of the ASNP 2010 conference was historically significant. It followed by less than one month NAELA's Special Needs Summit and occurred just days prior to enactment of United States Health Care Reform (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) on March 23, 2010.

Topics and Speakers

• "Living with Autism" study - Joanne Gruszkos introduced a new study about autism, conducted by Easter Seals with sponsorship from MassMutual. The study addresses family issues and challenges related to life care planning for autistic individuals.
• Special needs trusts - Professor Jeffrey Pennell deconstructed a typical third party special needs trust from a tax and trust attorney perspective, then joined a panel including special needs attorneys Michele Fuller and Kevin Urbatsch to reconstruct the same trust from a more holistic viewpoint. Evan Krame discussed how to fix trusts to make them qualify for special needs purposes and also offered guidance in using pooled trusts. Krame's handout materials included a useful guide titled "25 Questions to Evaluate Pooled Trusts".
• SSI and SSDI Updates - David Lillesand summarized developments impacting Social Security including extensive and valuable reference materials featuring charts, diagrams and recent regulatory rulings.
• Marketing for Special Needs Attorneys - Harry Margolis and Vincent Russo discussed traditional and non-traditional methods for special needs attorneys to market their expertise. Margolis' non-traditional analysis complemented an earlier NAELA webinar by ASNP COO Mark Miller. Margolis provided an introductory overview of web 2.0 including recommendations about specific social networking tools.
• IRC 468B Qualified Settlement Funds - Jason Lazarus re-introduced QSFs emphasizing practical applications as well as expanding professional opportunities for special needs attorneys in settlement planning. Lazarus addressed current political issues impacting the use of QSFs in single claimant cases.
• Special Needs Advocacy and Litigation - Patricia Harrison spoke generally and summarized historically federal and state based special needs litigation. Saundra Gumerove spoke more specifically about special education advocacy and litigation.
• Additional topics - Sanford Mall spoke about Military and Veterans benefits as increasingly important for special needs planning. Mall separately addressed how to obtain and coordinate funding for healthcare. Dr. Harriett Mall discussed the psychology of poverty.

Congratulations to ASNP 2010 program co-chairs Frank Johns and Franchelle Millender for continuing ASNP's high standard of educational excellence. In addition to interesting topics and speakers and valuable handout materials, ASNP conferences are also characterized by their well-qualified attendees and informative exhibitors with whom ASNP provides substantial opportunities for interaction.

Prior S2KM blog posts about the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) - which are also accessible on S2KM's structured settlement wiki:

• 2009 ASNP Annual Meeting
• 2008 ASNP Annual Meeting
• 2007 ASNP Annual Meeting

NAELA Special Needs Summit - 3

This S2KM blog post strategically analyzes the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) 2010 Special Needs Summit from an Internet-based knowledge management (KM) perspective. The NAELA Special Needs Summit occurred February 25-27 in New Orleans. Prior S2KM blog posts summarized the NAELA Special Needs Summit and analyzed the NAELA Special Needs Summit from a structured settlement perspective.

This S2KM review also considers a March 9, 2010 Web 2.0 webinar for NAELA members by Mark Miller titled "Web 2.0: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". Miller is Chief Operating Officer of ElderLawAnswers; General Manager of Lawyers Life Network; and Director of Operations and Business Development for the Academy of Special Needs Planners. Miller has more than 15 years experience in sales and business development for web-based service providers.

Positives

• Knowledge resources - Whether the subject is elder law, special needs law or personal injury settlement law, NAELA's membership possesses substantial knowledge resources. Specific to disabled persons, NAELA's knowledge encompasses technical legal knowledge as well as relationship knowledge with disability leaders and disability community stakeholders.
• Knowledge culture - NAELA promotes and prioritizes legal scholarship. Examples include: the NAELA Journal and NAELA's annual writing prize for law students. NAELA promotes and practices knowledge sharing. NAELA's unprograms offer a non-hierarchical and interactive learning alternative to traditional lectures. Compared with traditional lectures, NAELA's unprogram learning model is more comparable with how collaborative learning occurs on the Internet.
• Focus on web 2.0 - NAELA has identified and offered learning resources on web 2.0 and social network technologies. In addition to Mark Miller's March 9, 2010 web 2.0 presentation, NAELA also featured S2KM's web 2.0 for lawyers wiki at its 2008 National Symposium.
• Mark Miller's web 2.0 presentation - Miller's 90 minute web 2.0 presentation was comprehensive. It highlighted many web 2.0 features, tools, and developments and offered advice for NAELA members about blogging; podcasting; web-site design; search engine optimization; news feeds; key word searches; social media; and emerging tools.
• Web 2.0 examples - a growing number of NAELA members, and non-NAELA special needs attorneys, have experimented with web 2.0 tools - especially blogs and podcasts. Examples of special needs and elder law blogs:
  • Harry Margolis
  • David Lillesand
  • Frank Johns
  • Patricia Kefalas
  • John Campbell

Negatives

• Web 2.0 learning disconnect
  • Neither the NAELA Special Needs Summit nor Miller's web 2.0 webinar made any attempt to integrate the web 2.0 medium itself into their learning programs.
  • If "the medium is the message" (to quote Marshall McLuhan), NAELA has not yet processed or responded to that message from a web 2.0 learning perspective.
  • NAELA's conference was typical of almost all professional association education conferences. Learning takes place in multi-purpose hotel meeting rooms with no Internet resources or integration. Laptops are discouraged by the general failure to provide power outlets. With the notable exception of NAELA's unprograms, the speakers lecture with limited audience interaction. Supplemental learning resources include power points, hardcopy handouts or web 1.0 flash disks.
  • Miller's web 2.0 webinar utilized a traditional web 1.0 powerpoint. His extensive presentation was lecture format with limited interactivity and no asynchronous features.
  • Typical of most introductions to the Internet, Miller's web 2.0 webinar focused primarily on identity and marketing - with no discussion about whether and how web 2.0 can enhance and accelerate learning or what learning issues and strategies occur with web 2.0.
  • As one example of a web 2.0 learning issue, many college professors (the paragons of old school learning) are banning laptops from their classroom and view in-class Internet surfing as a distraction. These paragons, however, typically lack any ability to integrate discussions (example: Socratic teaching) or Internet resources into their classroom experience. Their teaching model is a hierarchical lecture which is contrary to how the web 2.0 Internet functions.
  • Teaching web 2.0 using web 1.0 (or predecessor technologies) is akin to trying to teach people to swim or play basketball in a traditional classroom - using hardcopy text with no diagrams - instead of utilizing a swimming pool or a basketball court. After an hour or a semester in the classroom, the students still won't be able to swim or play basketball.
• Role of knowledge management
  • NAELA's members all qualify as knowledge workers. Without specifically studying knowledge management, NAELA has spent 25 years helping its members identify, expand and manage knowledge.
  • The changing Internet medium (currently web 2.0 featuring social network technologies) prioritizes knowledge and how you manage knowledge:
    • Knowledge generally becomes more transferrable and complex.
    • New knowledge tools, systems, networks, teams and leaders emerge.
    • New business models evolve requiring online skill sets and related knowledge services.
  • Unless NAELA and its members study and understand Internet-based knowledge management, how will they successfully transfer their professional knowledge (including relationship knowledge) to web 2.0?
  • And what happens to those professionals and professional associations who are slow (or unable) to successfully transfer their knowledge to the Internet? How will they compete? Who will want (or allow) them to participate on Internet-based knowledge teams and networks?
  • Neither Miller's web 2.0 webinar nor NAELA's first-ever Special Needs Summit discussed knowledge management.
  • How could knowledge management have improved the NAELA Special Needs Summit? As one example, the NAELA Summit made no attempt to define special needs law or to differentiate special needs law from elder law or personal injury settlement law. NAELA could have used (and still could use) various types of knowledge maps to:
    • Define these strategically important knowledge domains and related knowledge boundaries;
    • Identify stakeholders and online learning resources within each community of practice;
    • Highlight transactional events and transferable knowledge opportunities for NAELA members within each knowledge domain.

Unsolicited Recommendations for NAELA

• Continue to study Internet-based knowledge management - focusing on web 2.0 and social network technologies.
• Develop a web 2.0 learning strategy:
  • Utilizing appropriate learning environments, teachers and tools.
  • Introducing participants to online culture, organizational theory and functional skill sets through actual experience.
  • Integrating web 2.0 learning into NAELA's other educational programs.

For Additional Information see:

• Denham Grey's KM wiki
• S2KM prior blog posts
  • Web 2.0 for Lawyers Concept Map - featuring Barbara Bowen
  • Knowledge Management and Structured Settlements

Structured Settlement 2009 Strategic Analysis

S2KM has begun a mid-year 2009 strategic analysis of the structured settlement industry. This analysis includes attending and reporting about 2009 structured settlement professional stakeholder meetings plus continuing conversations with structured settlement industry leaders.

To organize and publish S2KM's findings and analysis, S2KM is developing, and plans to publish and update, a related public wiki titled "Structured Settlements 2009". Here is a preview of this S2KM public wiki home page.

Purposes of S2KM's Structured Settlements 2009 wiki

• Provide S2KM with a dedicated online resource to identify, capture, organize and publish 2009 structured settlement strategic analysis.
• Demonstrate how blogs and wikis can interact to improve strategic analysis and learning.
• Encourage structured settlement knowledge leaders and professional associations to endorse, encourage and participate in strategic industry analysis.
• Help all structured settlement stakeholders to better understand, improve and grow structured settlements.

Table of Contents - includes references to related 2009 conference presentations; subject to continuing wiki updates:

• S2KM primary analytic resources - S2KM blog reporting for:
  • 2009 structured settlement stakeholder meetings - the Table of Contents incorporates and features educational discussions from the following conferences:
    
    • NSSTA 2009 Winter Meeting
    • ASNP 2009 Annual Meeting
    • SSP 2009 Annual Meeting
    • NSSTA 2009 Annual Meeting
  • Structured settlement professional stakeholder association prior year meetings
  • Related topics and knowledge leaders:
    
    • Settlement consulting;
    • Tim Nay Interview.
• S2KM's transitional perspective - structured settlements are undergoing two primary transitions:
  • From claim management to settlement consulting:
    • NSSTA: Settlement Consulting - Joseph DiGangi
    • SSP: Settlement Planning Industry Update - Patrick Hindert.
    • SSP - State of the Art Settlement Planning - Joseph Tombs
    • NSSTA: Looking Forward - Chris Diamantis and Dan Durbin.
  • From historic communication, learning and work processing to Internet-based models:
    • NSSTA:Web 2.0 - Patrick Hindert.
• Public policy - no 2009 stakeholder association discussions.
• Legislation and regulations
  • Existing
    • Federal
      • SSP: Tax Panel - Richard Risk; Sylvius von Saucken; Peter Wayne.
    • State
      • SSP: Judicial Approval of Minors Settlements - Phillip McCrury.
      • NSSTA: Exemptions for Structured Settlement Payments - Craig Ulman.
  • Proposed - no 2009 stakeholder association discussions.
    • Federal
    • State
  • Political strategy
    • NSSTA: Federal Entitlement Programs - Andrew Imparato.
    • NSSTA: Washington Reports - Eric Vaughn.
    • SSP: AAJ Strategy - John Bowman.
    • NSSTA: Federal and State Issues - Len Blonder.
    • NSSTA political speakers:
      • Senator Richard Durbin (D) from Illinois;
      • Senator Charles Grassley (R) from Iowa;
      • Congressman Charles Rangle (D) from New York;
      • Congressman Kendrick Meek (D) from Florida;
      • Congressman James Langevin (D) from Rhode Island;
      • Congressman Joseph Crowley (D) from New York;
      • Congressman Dave Camp (R) from Michigan;
      • Congressman Brian Higgins (D) from New York;
      • Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz (D) from Pennsylvania;
      • Congressman Joseph Courtney (D) from Connecticut;
      • Plus the Chiefs of Staff for four congressmen.
• Case law
  • SSP: Litigation and Legislative Update - Anthony Alfieri.
  • NSSTA: Spencer v. Hartford - Michael Miller.
  • NSSTA: Fresno County Factoring Cases - Illana Hanau.
• Primary and secondary markets
  • NSSTA: Secondary Market Update - Michael Miller and Illana Hanau.
• Government benefits
  • NSSTA: Federal Entitlement Programs - Andrew Imparato.
  • ASNP: Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance - Mark Popolizio.
  • ASNP:Lien Resolution Strategies - William Browning; Mark Popolizio; Sylvius von Saucken.
  • SSP: MMSEA Section 111 - Mark Popolizio.
  • NSSTA: Medicare Panel - Roy Franco; Mark Popolizio; David Korch; Rafael Gonzoles.
  • NSSTA: Medicaid Panel - John McCulloch; Timothy O'Driscoll; Dennis McAndrews
• Structured settlement economics
  • ASNP: Structured Settlement Annuities - Jack Meligan and Michele Whitmore.
  • SSP: Life Insurance Insolvencies - Eric Nordman.
  • NSSTA: Financial Strength Ratings - William Pargeans.
• Structured settlement funding products
  • NSSTA: 468B QSFs - Henry Strong, William Winslow, James Klapps.
  • ASNP: Structured Settlement Annuities - Jack Meligan and Michele Whitmore.
  • ASNP: 468B QSFs - Richard Risk and Jason Lazurus.
  • SSP: Settlement Trusts - Christi Fried.
  • SSP: Settlement Trust Software - David Eichenbaum.
• Transactional analysis
  • ASNP: Anatomy of a SNSP Case - Frank Johns, Kevin Urbatsch, Patrick Hindert.
• Stakeholder associations
  • NSSTA (2), SSP and ASNP 2009 meetings.
• Ethics
  • NSSTA: Business Ethics - Father Oliver Williams.
  • NSSTA: Business Ethics - Mike Jones.
• Standards
  • SSP: Registered Settlement Planner - Joseph Tombs.
• Business models
  • Claim management
    • NSSTA: Plaintiff and Defense Brokers - Ronald Sullivan, James Early, Roger Bernstein, Bruce DeBacher, Michael Goodman.
    • SSP:Structured Settlement Insolvencies - Randy Dyer.
    • SSP: Growing Structured Settlements - Randy Dyer.
    • SSP: In-House Structured Settlement Programs - Kevin Mack.
    • NSSTA: Minnesota Bridge Collapse - Jerry Lothrop.
  • Settlement consulting
    • NSSTA: Settlement Consulting - Joseph DiGangi.
    • ASNP: Integrating SNSP with an Elder law Practice - Tim Nay and Sandy Conley.
    • ASNP: Marketing to the Trial Bar - Frank Johns, Jason Lazurus, Kevin Urbatsch.
    • SSP: State of the Art Settlement Planning - Joseph Tombs.

ASNP 2009 Annual Meeting

The Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) hosted its Third Annual Meeting March 6-7, 2009 at the Rancho Bernardo Inn in San Diego, California. Titled "Special Needs Planning in an Era of Change", the program devoted one day of educational discussions to "special needs settlement planning" (SNSP) which ASNP characterized as a "new opportunity" for special needs attorneys.

The ASNP speakers included leading special needs attorneys and plaintiff structured settlement consultants who provided detailed analyses of the following SNSP topics:

• Anatomy of a SNSP Case - Frank Johns, Kevin Urbatsch and Patrick Hindert;
• Structured Settlement Annuities in SNSP Practice - Jack Meligan and Michele Whitmore;
• IRC 468B Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) - Jason Lazarus and Richard Risk;
• Integrating SNSP with an Elder Law Practice - Tim Nay and Sandy Conley;
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance - Mark Popolizio;
• Lien Resolution Strategies - William Browning, Mark Popolizio and Sylvius von Saucken;
• Marketing to the Trial Bar - Frank Johns, Jason Lazarus, and Kevin Urbatsch.

The SNSP program highlighted three basic issues:

• What is SNSP?
  
• What changes are impacting SNSP?
• What new opportunities does SNSP create for special needs attorneys?

What is SNSP?

Surprisingly, none of the speakers attempted to specifically define SNSP. Hindert recommended web 2.0 knowledge maps, wikis and folksonomies as a strategy for defining and growing SNSP.

Meligan and Whitmore described the related topic of "settlement planning" as both a profession and a process. According to Meligan and Whitmore: "Settlement planning is a profession that helps recipients of settlement proceeds use their proceeds to achieve their post-loss goals and transition successfully into their post-settlement financial lives". Meligan and Whitmore recommended utilizing settlement planning professionals with: credentials; loyalty to plaintiffs; planning approach; and experience. Meligan and Whitmore also described "settlement planning" as part of a three-part process preceded by litigation and followed by financial planning.

von Saucken also described "settlement planning" as a process or "continuum" subject to changing rules that require adjustments in settlement planning prototypes. von Saucken presented a settlement planning timeline:

• Agreement on settlement amount;
• Lien reimbursement;
• Medicare/Medicaid preservation trust;
• Structured settlement paperwork;
• Disbursement.

By comparison, during his recent presentation at the NSSTA 2009 Winter Meeting, Joseph DiGangi defined "settlement consulting" as a four-stage process:

• Analysis
• Planning
• Implementation
• Monitoring

Most of the ASNP presenters identified and addressed "structured settlements" as an essential component of SNSP. As part of his 468B QSF comments, Risk reviewed several structured settlement definitions including the tax definition in IRC section 5891(c)(1). To S2KM's knowledge, Risk thereby becomes the first structured settlement primary market participant to review the IRC section 5891 tax definition for "structured settlement" during a national conference. By comparison, not a single NSSTA or SSP conference speaker has reviewed the IRC Section 5891 definition for "structured settlement" since IRC 5891 was enacted in 2001. Risk also becomes, to S2KM's knowledge, the first conference speaker to link IRC 468B and 5891 which S2KM views as a strategic SNSP construct.

Several ASNP speakers addressed various types of settlement trusts in the context of SNSP. Browning highlighted settlement trust "due diligence" as an increasingly important SNSP issue. Three settlement trust providers, but not one structured settlement annuity provider, exhibited at the SNSP conference.

What changes are impacting SNSP?

ASNP speakers identified and highlighted the following changes impacting SNSP:

• Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA);
• The Ahlborn Case;
• 468B qualified settlement funds (QSFs);
• Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA);
• Recent MSA rules promulgated by CMS;
• The structured settlement secondary market;
• State structured settlement protection statutes;
• Transition of knowledge and knowledge work to the Internet.

Additional changes referenced by ASNP speakers which deserve more detailed analysis in future SNSP discussions:

• Transitional SNSP business models:
  • How the claim management SNSP model differs from the 468B QSF SNSP model; and
  • How to develop multi-professional SNSP teams and knowledge networks.
• How the current financial crisis impacts SNSP;
• Proposed and/or needed SNSP legislative and regulatory changes.

What new opportunities does SNSP create for special needs attorneys?

Traditional special needs legal practice and education have focused on special needs trusts, estate planning, government benefits and probate. As the ASNP conference demonstrated, SNSP encompasses traditional special needs expertise, but also new fields of related legal practice.

Four leading SNSP legal treatises (listed alphabetically by title) define these new fields of SNSP legal practice:

• "Negotiating and Settling Tort Cases" - by Matt Garretson and Guy O. Kornblum;
• "Qualified Settlement Funds and Section 468B" - by Robert W. Wood;
• "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" - by Daniel W. Hindert, Joseph J. Dehner and Patrick J. Hindert;
• "Taxation of Damage Awards and Settlement Payments" - by Robert W. Wood.

The ASNP presentation by speakers Johns, Lazarus and Urbatsch titled "Marketing to the Trial Bar" offered valuable advice for special needs attorneys as well as other SNSP stakeholders. S2KM's structured settlement transaction diagram, developed in 2005 with graphic artist Keith Burtoft, may help special needs attorneys identify other potential SNSP clients and roles. In addition, as S2KM's blog post "Structured Settlement Surveys" demonstrates, further market research would be useful to define and grow the SNSP market.

Congratulations to ASAP and SNSP program Chairperson Tim Nay for the timely and educational SNSP program. Prior S2KM blog posts about ASNP:

• 2008 ASNP Conference;
• 2007 ASNP Conference.

For additional information about settlement consulting, see S2KM's four-part blog series "Settlement Consulting".

Structured Settlements in 2009 - 1

S2KM's first reporting and analysis for the structured settlement industry in 2009.

Prior S2KM analysis

• The Future of Structured Settlements
• Structured Settlement Transaction Diagram
• Knowledge Management and Structured Settlements
• Structured Settlements in 2008
  • Part 1 - Historic Context
  • Part 2 - Professional Associations
  • Part 3 - Industry Challenges
  • S2P2J Release 44
• Structured Settlements in 2007
• Structured Settlements in 2006
• Structured Settlement History - up to 2005

Preliminary 2009 Calendar

• January 28-30 - NSSTA Winter Meeting in Orlando
• February 7-11 - AAJ and NATLE Winter Meetings in New Orleans
• March 6-7 - ASNP Annual Meeting in San Diego
• March 31-April 5 - NAELA Annual Meeting in Washington D.C.
• April 27-28 - SSP Annual Meeting in Washington D.C.
• April 28 - May 1 - NSSTA Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C.

S2KM 2009 Knowledge Work - by Patrick Hindert, S2KM's Managing Director:

• NSSTA Winter Meeting - Hindert will lead a discussion titled "Web 2.0: How NSSTA Members Can Improve their Online Communication, Learning and Collaboration Skills".
• ASNP Annual Meeting - Hindert will introduce a wiki to support a presentation by Frank Johns, Kevin Urbatsch and Hindert titled "Special Needs Settlement Planning (SNSP) Case Anatomy".
• S2P2J Release 45 - Hindert will help update existing analysis in "Structured Settlement and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) about settlement planning due diligence.
• S2KM Blog - structured settlement industry issues S2KM will continue to report and analyze:
  • Transition from
    • Claim management to settlement planning
    • Web 1.0 to web 2.0
  • Impact of the
    
    • Financial crisis - including insolvencies, guarantee funds, investment performance and rating agencies;
    • Obama administration - including new legislation and regulations.
  • Interaction between
    • Insurers (annuities) and banks (trusts, accounts, funds)
    • Primary and secondary markets
    • Structured settlements and government benefits

Structured Settlements in 2008 - 2

This S2KM blog post, the second of three analyzing structured settlements in 2008, summarizes conferences S2KM attended throughout the year. A prior post evaluated 2008 from an historical structured settlement perspective. A subsequent post will discuss challenges facing the structured settlement industry in 2009. Conferences and associations are listed alphabetically. For more detailed reports about these conferences, check the parenthetical links for related S2KM blog posts. For S2KM's complete historical review of professional associations and conferences, see S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) - The second annual ASNP conference underscored the strategic nexus that exists between special needs planning, settlement planning and structured settlements. ASNP's "extra-curricular" program featured a social service project where 30 ASNP conference attendees assisted Families Helping Families of Southeast Louisiana repair and improve its office headquarters. The ASNP conference confirmed for this author why special needs attorneys and financial planners, as opposed to former life insurance salesmen and claim managers, represent the future of structured settlements and settlement planning. Although several NSSTA and SSP members attended and/or participated as speakers, most of the structured settlement industry missed this valuable conference.

American Association for Persons with Disabilities (AAPD) - Structured settlement leaders from both NSSTA and SSP attended the 2008 AAPD Leadership Gala dinner in Washington, D.C. - in addition to many Congressional and Disability leaders. NSSTA was one of the event sponsors and had earlier featured Andrew J. Imparato, AAPD President and CEO, as a speaker at NSSTA's 2007 Fall Meeting. Imparato, a visionary and inspirational leader, is dedicated to transitioning disabled persons from poverty to economic self-sufficiency. AAPD's strategy includes uniting disabled persons as a political block and business market. AAPD's political priorities include changing the social security statutory definition of "disability" from "unable to work" to address "barriers to work" for disabled persons. Imparato's message for structured settlement professionals: involve yourselves at the local level with independent living centers.

National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) - NAELA's Mission is "is to establish NAELA members as the premier providers of legal advocacy, guidance and services to enhance the lives of seniors and people with disabilities". NAELA's membership consists of 4400 attorneys in the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom. Most of the members of ASNP and the Special Needs Alliance (SNA) are members of NAELA including many NAELA founders and former Presidents and Directors. S2KM developed a "Web 2.0 for Lawyers" wiki for the NAELA 2008 Symposium which was also featured in a Legal Broadcast Network (LBN) podcast interview by Scott Drake with S2KM's Managing Director, Patrick Hindert. S2KM also published a 2008 blog post analyzing NAELA and NAELA's CELA certification program from a knowledge management and web 2.0 perspective.

National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP) - Founded in 2005, NAMSAP is a non-profit organization devoted to improving Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs) and to facilitating compliance with Medicare conditional payment recovery.

• Background - MSAs are administrative and funding mechanisms utilized in certain categories of settlements to protect Medicare's interests as "secondary payer" under the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) statute. Although the MSP rules were enacted by Congress in 1980, CMS did not begin to enforce the MSP statute until 2001 based upon a series of CMS policy memoranda for workers compensation cases, several of which address structured settlement issues.
• MMSEA - On December 29, 2007, President George W. Bush signed into law the "Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007" (MMSEA). Beginning July 1, 2009, MMSEA requires liability insurers (including self-insurers, no-fault insurers and workers compensation insurers) to determine Medicare status for all claimants and report all claims involving a Medicare beneficiary to CMS when those claims are resolved. If the reporting for any claimant is not done in a timely manner, MMSEA authorizes CMS to enforce a civil penalty against liability insurers of $1000 per day per claimant. These information requirements and penalty provisions provide the basis for expanded enforcement by CMS of the MSP statute.
• MARC - One of the featured presenters at the NAMSAP 2008 Annual meeting was Roy Franco, Director of Safeway's Risk Management Strategies and Chairman of the Medicare Advocacy Recovery Coalition (MARC).
  • In discussing the MMSEA requirements for liability cases, Franco said "the issue is not just about reporting" and predicted a "claim freeze" as liability insurers and self-insureds wait for resolution and approval before they pay claims.
  • Franco characterized the MMSEA MSP rules as an attack on traditional best practices for liability claim management. He predicted legal challenges and criticized MMSEA rules.
  • Franco outlined MARC's priorities for MMSEA which include changing the law or, alternatively, obtaining an injunction to stop its July 1, 2009 implementation.
• S2KM reporting - S2KM published seven blog posts in 2008 highlighting recent MSA and MMSEA developments that impact structured settlements including several developments that have occured during 2008.
• S2P2J analysis - S2P2J Release 44 features an extensive update of MSA rules for structured settlements as well as a summary of MMSEA.

National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) - At the NASP 2008 Annual Meeting, Patrick Hindert, S2KM's blog author, moderated a panel discussion titled "How to Improve and Grow the Structured Settlement Market". Participants included: Jack Meligan, Michael Upchurch and Matthew Bracy. As settlement planners, both Meligan and Upchurch described their view of the secondary market as a "mixed-bag" of bad and good. The "bad" part of factoring results from non-professional ("cash now") advertisements promoted by many factoring companies.

Not only do plaintiff attorneys dislike "cash now" advertisements, according to Meligan and Upchurch, they are also less likely to recommend structured settlements if they believe their clients will eventually sell their payment rights.

The potential liquidity provided by settlement transfers improves the structured settlement annuity product. Lives change. Unexpected events occur. Even the best personal injury settlement plans need to be reviewed post-settlement and sometimes adjusted. Settlement transfers, which must be reviewed and approved by state judges, are appropriate in some cases.

Bracy emphasized the need for well-educated plaintiffs and plaintiff attorneys - as well as judges. He noted that many primary market participants have ignored the settlement transfer business. Bracy acknowledged that good and bad business practices exist in the secondary market as well as the primary market. According to Bracy, the potential secondary structured settlement represents between 5% and 7% of the total primary market. Most structured settlement cases, according to Bracy, neither require nor qualify for a settlement transfer.

National Settlement Consultants (NSC) - Patrick Hindert, S2KM's Managing Director and blog author, was privileged to speak at the NSC 2008 Annual Meeting and also to attend NSC presentations and social functions. In addition to Michael and William Goodman, NSC founders and principals, the NSC presenters included representatives from ten (10) structured settlement annuity providers as well as several national settlement planning experts. In retrospect, the "not-for-publication" May 2008 NSC presentations by some of the annuity providers now seem especially interesting and important. Among other topics, these presentations addressed investment exposure to real estate mortgages plus one annuity provider's study of settlement transfers by its own structured settlement recipients. Randy Snow's NSC keynote presentation about change and growth was humorous and thought-provoking. Randy subsequently participated in a series of S2KM blog interviews about change and growth in the structured settlement industry. Hindert provided a structured settlement Medicaid update as part of the NSC educational program.

National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) - Founded in 1985, NSSTA is the oldest and largest structured settlement professional trade association. NSSTA's members are primarily structured settlement consultants and annuity providers. In addition to providing education and certification, NSSTA historically has served as the legislative and lobbying voice of the primary structured settlement market. NSSTA's committees, especially NSSTA's legal committee, are among the most valuable sources of information about the structured settlement industry.

• Winter Meeting - Prominent educational themes and presentations at the NSSTA 2008 Winter Meeting included: trial attorneys; disabled persons and disability associations; government benefits; structured settlement legal documentation; legislative and regulatory developments; Internet marketing; and professionalism.
• Annual Meeting - Chris Diamantis, NSSTA's 2008 President, introduced Joseph Ricci as NSSTA's new Executive Director, and identified NSSTA's strategic priorities for 2008: factoring; advocacy and marketing; professionalism; and governance and communication. J.P. Steele announced the results of a Structured Settlement Survey Report sponsored by AIG which S2KM summarized in a November 23, 2008 blog post. Eric Vaughn, NSSTA's lobbyist, provided a "Washington Report" analyzing the then-upcoming federal election from a structured settlement perspective. Legal committee co-chairman, Michael Miller, summarized results from 100 factoring cases in which his law firm, Drinker Biddle, had participated since January 2008. Craig Ulman, NSSTA's General Legal Counsel, provided a State Guarantee Funds primer. Bradley Frigon spoke about special needs trusts. Among other topics, two actuarial presentations discussed structured settlement pricing.
• Fall Meeting - Although S2KM participated in four committee meetings at NSSTA's 2008 Fall Meeting, S2KM did not attend NSSTA's educational program because of a scheduling conflict. S2KM's blog coverage of this meeting therefore was limited to editorial commentary.

Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) - Founded in 2001, SSP is a national nonprofit educational and public policy association of professional structured settlement producers and others who assist injured claimants in the settlement process. At its 2008 Annual meeting, the SSP adopted its "Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners", a multi-year SSP project initiated and managed by SSP Director and attorney Richard Risk.

Carl A. Pierce, distinguished professor of law at the University of Tennessee, assisted SSP with this ethics project. Pierce served as a reporter for the latest revision of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

Frank Johns, a leading special needs attorney and settlement planning ethicist, also advised SSP on its Standards of Professional Conduct. Johns' 2008 SSP presentation introduced a proposed Request for Proposal (RFP) for settlement planners.

Risk organized and moderated SSP's tax panel that featured Jody Brewster, Glenn Mackies and Michael Montemurro.

SSP devoted three presentations to government benefits, the highlight being David Lillesand, a national leader among social security and special needs trust attorneys. Based upon his discussions with the Social Security Administration (SSA), Lillesand stated that Nancy Veillon's January 31, 2006 letters to attorneys Roger Bernstein and Jay Sangerman representing NSSTA are "inoperative" - a statement Lillesand repeated during his presentation with SSA executive attorney Ken Brown at the ASNP 2008 Annual Meeting.

SSP's panel discussion about the secondary markets included NASP Executive Earl Nesbitt, Stephen Harris and Rhonda Bentzen. Other SSP educational presentations included a legislation and litigation update, settlement planning case studies, and advice about Internet marketing.

Stetson Special Needs Trust X (SSNTX) - Throughout its 10 year history, the Stetson Conference has been recognized as the leading special needs trust (SNT) knowledge forum in the United States. Most of the speakers are members of either the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) or the Special Needs Alliance (SNA). For structured settlement professionals, the 2008 Stetson program titled "The Basics of Special Needs Trusts" offered analyses of several important settlement planning topics and included two presentations specifically focusing on structured settlements:

• Texas Attorney Pi-Yi Mayo spoke about the January 31, 2006 Social Security Administration (SSA) letters to attorneys Roger Bernstein and Jay Sangerman as well as the application of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) to structured settlements used to fund special needs trusts; and
• Leo Govoni provided "An Economic Analysis of Structured Settlements".

Structured Settlement Knowledge Leadership Conference (SSKLC) - Focusing on the "needs and best interests of consumers", the first Structured Settlement Thought Leadership Conference, sponsored by J.G. Wentworth, was designed to bring together knowledge leaders who are "redefining structured settlement roles and processes". The Leadership Conference objective was to provide an educational platform and open forum dedicated to growing and improving the structured settlement market. In addition to four panel discussions and two individual presentations, the Leadership Conference featured a brainstorming session to improve the structured settlement process for plaintiffs based upon the subjects discussed in prior sessions. The panel discussions addressed the economic life cycle of a personal injury claim identified by Adam Scales in his 2002 Wisconsin Law Review article titled "Against Settlement Factoring? The Market in Tort Claims has Arrived". One result of the Leadership Conference was the subsequent 2008 structured settlement survey conducted by J.G. Wentworth.

Settlement Trusts Revisited

Introduction

S2KM previously published blog posts in 2004 about:

• Settlement trusts
• Selecting a settlement trustee

The Spring 2008 issue of "The Brief", a publication of the Tort, Trial and Litigation section of the American Bar Association (ABA), features an article written by Henry L. Strong and David M. Cordell, titled "Fiduciary Focus - The Prudent Integration of Structured Settlements and Post-Settlement Trusts".

Strong, the immediate past-president of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), and Cordell, Director of Finance Programs at the University of Texas in Dallas, would appear to be well-qualified to analyze the relationship of annuities and trusts in personal injury settlement planning.

Summary of Article

The authors identify the following objectives for their article:

• Outline key distinctions between "structured settlements" and "post-settlement trusts";
• Articulate how these differences affect returns on a risk-adjusted basis;
• Demonstrate how a thoughtful integration can deliver "vastly superior results" compared with results of either alternative alone;
• Clear up the confusion over how to allocate settlement proceeds thereby assisting attorneys, judges and injured claimants;
• Offer practice tips to avoid problems.

Their article sets forth many premises and assertions including:

• Because attorneys and judges are not trained in "modern finance", they risk liability for failing to:
  • Meet "prudent standards" of care, skill and caution; or
  • Determine the risk and return of a settlement plan.
• Although "settlement fiduciaries" may analyze proposed settlements from a legal perspective, they rarely pay attention to "economic sufficiency" - which the authors define as "the prudent process by which recovery assets are actually conveyed to the injured party and then invested and managed over time".
• The core dynamic in the structured settlement vs. post-settlement trust debate parallels modern portfolio theory;
• Beyond risk and return, the most important investment decision-making considerations "by far" for personal injury settlements are diversification, taxation, fees and liquidity. According to Strong and Cordell, "all other considerations pale in comparison".

Following a one paragraph summary of "modern portfolio theory", Strong and Cordell propose a definition for "modern settlement theory": "the discovery that blending dissimilar distribution methods not only reduces risk but also increases returns for injured claimants".

The authors compare the relative merits of structured settlement annuities and post-settlement trusts in the context of the following "allocation strategy considerations":

• Taxability
• Conditionality of payments
• Liquidity
• Trust/custodial fees
• Investment options
• Longevity risk hedge
• Medical underwriting

The authors conclude their article by addressing:

• Liability exposure
• Destructive receipt
• Informed consent
• Involvement of qualified experts.

Analysis of Article

The interaction of structured settlement annuities and settlement trusts represents an important, timely and complex subject. Instead of offering settlement solutions, the structured settlement industry historically has sold a single product (annuities) and viewed settlement trusts and trustees as competitors. From that perspective, the article by Strong and Cordell is a positive step forward. Their proposed "modern settlement theory" should serve as a catalyst for additional industry analysis and discussion.

Unfortunately, the article by Strong and Cordell contains serious omissions and flaws which call into question some of their assertions and conclusions. Here are some of the problems with their article:

• Definitions - The authors fail to define some of the most basic and important terms they are discussing. Examples:
  • "Post-settlement trusts" - What are "post-settlement trusts"? What types of settlement trusts are the authors discussing (and not discussing) in their article?  They never say.  Are they including or excluding settlement trusts which are established concurrently with (not following) a personal injury settlement? Most settlement trusts are part of the settlement. These include:
    • Settlement preservation trusts
      
    • Blended trusts
    • Medical reversionary trusts
    • IRC section 468B trusts
    • Special needs trusts
    • Medicare set-aside trusts
    • IRC section 130 government obligation trusts
  • "Settlement fiduciary" - Who exactly is a "settlement fiduciary"? The authors never define this term.  They assert ,without offering authority, that judges and plaintiff attorneys owe a financial fiduciary responsibility to injured claimants. Compared with recent discussions and papers by attorneys Frank Johns and William Browning at the 2008 ASNP Annual Meeting , Strong and Cordell's discussion of fiduciary responsibilities, the Uniform Prudent Investor Act and ethical considerations under the ABA's Model Rules of Professional Conduct is incomplete. Strong and Cordell never specifically address the fiduciary responsibilities of settlement trustees, their attorneys, settlement planners or structured settlement consultants. They fail to reference either NAELA's Aspirational Standards or the SSP's Standards of Professional Conduct.
  • "Structured settlement" - Strong and Cordell never define "structured settlement". They fail to adequately explain or compare annuities and U.S. government obligations as alternative Qualified Funding Assets under IRC section 130. By ignoring the IRC section 5891(c)(1) definition of structured settlement, Strong and Cordell help to perpetuate an outdated industry perspective about structured settlement and settlement planning. Consistent with this outdated perspective, Strong and Cordell state: "structured settlements are not liquid because the recipient cannot exercise control over the funding assets". A related footnote references "certain finance companies" that "have begun" to offer "cash now" in exchange for a claimant's rights to receive future payments. Structured settlement transfers began in 1987 (21 years ago) and were legally sanctioned by IRC 5891 in 2002 (6 years ago). 46 states have enacted structured settlement protection statutes. Strong and Cordell fail to address how the secondary market impacts structured settlement liquidity and/or the interaction of structured settlement annuities, settlement trusts and settlement planning.
• Government benefits - With the exception of two minor references (one a footnote), Strong and Cordell ignore the impact of government benefits in settlement planning "distribution decisions". They never explain this omission. The importance of government benefit rules as "investment decision-making considerations" contradicts several of Strong and Cordell's assertions. These assertions include their priority of diversification, taxation, fees and liquidity as "by far" the most important considerations. To the contrary, government benefit issues frequently represent the single most important consideration in personal injury distribution decisions.  As David Lillesand highlighted at the 2008 Annual Meetings of both the Society of Settlement Planners and the Academy of Special Needs Planners, qualification for Medicaid is a "life or death" issue for many personal injury victims. Analysis of structured settlement annuities and settlement trusts should consider their interaction with Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans benefits, Section 8 Housing rules, special needs trusts, Medicare set-aside trusts, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007.  So why do Strong and Cordell ignore government benefits? Perhaps, incorrectly, they consider government benefits to be merely a legal consideration and not an investment consideration. Alternatively, they may actually believe NSSTA's historic and continuing message to Congress: "structured settlements enable injured victims to live ...free of reliance on government assistance".
• Settlement planning and special needs planning - The authors never reference or acknowledge settlement planning or special needs planning as existing and growing professional specialties. Both of these overlapping professions address the legal and financial interaction of annuities and trusts in personal injury settlements. The following professional associations and conferences feature experts and offer educational programs about issues that are fundamental to Strong and Cordell's ABA article and analysis:
  • The Society of Settlement Planners
  • National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys
  • Academy of Special Needs Planners
  • Special Needs Alliance
  • National Alliance of Medicare Set-aside Professional
  • Stetson Law School Special Needs Trust Seminars
  • National Alliance of Medicare-Set Aside Professionals

Conclusions: Strong and Cordell's ABA article highlights:

• An important topic that requires more and better analysis - the interaction of annuities (including the secondary market) and trusts in personal injury settlement planning;
• The knowledge gaps that currently exist between the structured settlement industry (and most personal financial planners) with:
  • Personal injury settlement planning;
  • Special needs planning;
  • Settlement trusts;
  • Government benefits;
  • Secondary life and annuity markets.
• The need for
  • Strategic thinking - The structured settlement industry, as a "transitional industry", needs to engage a new generation of leaders in strategic thinking that encompasses settlement trusts, government benefits and the secondary markets. For additional and related S2KM analysis, see 2008 NSSTA Annual Meeting-2.
  • Professionalism - The structured settlement industry needs to upgrade its professionalism  to understand and solve settlement problems instead of simply selling annuities. To achieve these objectives, SSP's educational programs, professional certification, and Standards for Professional Conduct currently offer the best industry resources and roadmap.
  • New trade association - Settlement trust companies should consider forming their own trade association to provide education, standards and lobbying complementary to NSSTA and SSP.