Beyond Structured Settlements

SSP President Responds to AIG Class Action Lawsuit

Based upon the history of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP), and the role of Richard Risk (an SSP founder and member) as one of the plaintiff attorneys, structured settlement industry participants might assume that SSP, as an association, supports the recently filed AIG Class Action Lawsuit. When asked by S2KM, however, SSP President Joe Tombs provided an unexpected response. Tombs' detailed response appears below. For context, however, S2KM first provides a brief background summary plus a summary of the AIG Class Action allegations.

Historic Industry Divisions

Although some structured settlement industry pioneers, including the late David Ringler, the first President of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) envisioned NSSTA as "a place where everyone and anyone [could] sit down with each other and discuss the issues and viewpoints regardless of beliefs", that utopian environment never fully materialized as multiple divisions developed within both the structured settlement market and the larger personal injury settlement consulting market. Examples include:

• Plaintiff vs. defense structured settlement brokers.
• Primary vs. secondary structured settlement markets.
• Structured settlements vs. settlement planning.
• Settlement annuities vs. settlement trusts.
• Settlement planning vs. special needs planning.

Among other results, the structured settlement industry now has both a primary and a secondary market and structured settlement industry participants with alternative issues, viewpoints, beliefs and educational interests have formed two national associations in addition to NSSTA: the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) and SSP. Although numerous and divisive issues have created serious political conflicts among these associations historically, leaders of all three associations have increasingly recognized and addressed the problems created by these conflicts.

During his three successive one year terms as SSP President, Immediate Past President Neil Johnson served as a powerful advocate for structured settlement industry unity. For example, as a guest speaker during NSSTA's 2014 Fall Conference, Johnson condemned lack of structured settlement industry unity as "a drain - a drain on financial resources ... a drain on productivity ... a drain on our public image ... a drain on physical and emotional health. Lack of unity diverts attention from productive projects. It always focuses attention on the negative, never on the positive. Lack of industry unity shows no partiality or favoritism for either NSSTA or SSP."

At the same time, Johnson proposed a "solution" for achieving structured settlement industry unity including these core elements:

• Recognizing and accepting product and professional diversity.
• Identifying and pursuing permanent shared interests without necessarily agreeing on all issues.
• Engaging all perspectives to discuss industry problems and issues.
• Promoting and practicing settlement planning with the structured settlement annuity as a core strategic product.

Among other highlights and milestones, the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) 2016 Annual Conference transferred association leadership from Johnson to Joe Tombs with Tombs promising to maintain Johnson's leadership direction, which focused on structured settlement "industry unity", and also, in a dramatic policy shift, to "pull SSP back completely from structured settlement politics."

AIG Class Action Lawsuit

Earlier this month, three plaintiff attorneys, including SSP founder and current SSP member Richard Risk, filed a Class Action Complaint in United States District Court District of Massachusetts. Among its allegations, the Class Action Lawsuit accuses Defendant American International Group, Inc. (AIG), a NSSTA member, and several of its affiliates of: 1) RICO violations; 2) fraudulent conduct; and 3) unjust enrichment.

Although not named as Defendants, the Class Action Complaint also identifies multiple structured settlement brokers (most, if not all, members of NSSTA) who, according to the Complaint, are "known as 'Agency Partners' [and] have been on the AIG Approved Broker List within periods relevant to this Complaint, and are part of the racketeering enterprise at issue..."

Plaintiffs characterize the primary AIG business practice they allege is illegal as a "short-changing scheme" which they describe as follows: "Defendants’ practice to fail to disclose to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class numerous material facts concerning how AIG conducted its Structured Settlement Program including, among other things, that:

• "Defendants participated in a short-changing scheme designed to allow them to recover the cost of their own structured settlement brokers, by deducting the brokers’ fees from that portion of the settlement that the settling parties had previously agreed would be one hundred percent (100%) invested in future payments;
• "Defendants accomplished this “short-change” by bundling the amount of the broker’s commission—namely, four percent (4%)—into the illustrated annuity cost;
• "Even when the broker’s fee was not 4%, AIG would keep for itself whatever portion of the commission was not paid to the broker; and,
• "As a result of the scheme undertaken by Defendants, the actual financial value of the settlement was materially lower than the value represented to injury claimants since four percent (4%) of the full amount of cash to be invested in annuity was, in fact, diverted by AIG to pay for its own Approved Brokers and In-House Brokers."

Other Plaintiff allegations:

• "AIG uses a structured settlement annuity software and quoting system that is represented by it and the Approved Brokers (and In-House Brokers) as illustrating future projected payments based on the amount of funds previously agreed between the settling parties to be invested in the annuity. But this representation is not true, because it does not reflect the commission that is paid to the broker, which is hidden in the cost or present value of the annuity communicated to the claimant or claimant’s attorney."
• "In fact, AIG trains its employees in the Structured Settlement Program, as well as its Approved Brokers and In-House Brokers, not to disclose to claimants (or their attorneys when retained) the fact that the broker’s fee is bundled into the represented annuity investment cost."
• "AIG’s employees, its Approved Brokers, and In-House Brokers are also trained to conceal this scheme, in the event of claimant inquiries about the payment of commissions, by avoiding a direct answer to the question or, sometimes, by indicating that payment of annuity premiums from the defendant’s AIG-affiliated liability insurer to American General avoids commission as a cost to claimant."
• "The AIG Approved Brokers are also required to fund periodic payments with an American General or other AIG-related annuity, if at all possible. This requirement is called the 'first and last right of refusal'.”

The Complaint includes a footnote #1 (page 1) explaining/alleging that: 1) most structured settlement "producers" are inappropriately referred to as "brokers" when in fact they are "agents" appointed by life insurance companies; 2) Use of the term "broker" is misleading and communicates a false duty of loyalty to the consumer/injury victim; 3) although a producer may hold a life agent's license, he/she cannot bind the life company when writing an annuity application; and 4) this distinction becomes important for defining a racketeering "enterprise" under the RICO Act when considering the relationship of structured settlement producers to issuers.

SSP President Joe Tombs Responds

Based upon the political history of the SSP, and role of Risk as plaintiff attorney, the AIG Class Action Lawsuit appears to present a significant test for SSP - especially in light of Immediate Past President Neil Johnson's advocacy for structured settlement unity and current President Joe Tombs' promise for SSP to avoid structured settlement politics. When asked by S2KM whether or not SSP supports the AIG Class Action Lawsuit, however, Tombs provided the following response (with S2KM emphasis):

• "We are neutral – SSP has no position at all and we will not take one in the future. A year ago, we decided to abandon taking “political” positions. Advocacy for victim’s financial rights had been a central mission of the SSP since its founding and so it was hard to let that go. A pillar of the “old” SSP’s advocacy mission was opposition to many of the features of some of the casualty company programs. Therefore, many people are confused that we don’t have a dog in this fight. Everyone expects the SSP to rush out and take its normal spot in the circular firing squad and start blastng away or at least provide the forum for a mob to form. I’m sorry to disappoint people but we are neutral - on the AIG Class Action Lawsuit or any political issue such as single claimant 468B Qualified Settlement Funds. Individual SSP members have the option to support or oppose specific political issues. SSP, as an association, however, will not. Our priorities are growth and the promotion of professionalism in the practice of settlement planning - both of which we are accomplishing successfully.
• "Dick Risk is a founding member and we once honored him with a lifetime achievement award at which time we granted him lifelong membership. The SSP makes no attempts to muzzle or restrain our members. They are free to think, say, or do what they wish. We used to carefully guard our roll and membership was open only to plaintiff-only structured settlement brokers. Today, membership is open to anyone interested in comprehensive settlement planning as long as they are not engaged in factoring. Our membership includes a diverse group of structure brokers from most of the larger groups, trust company officers, financial planners, special needs trust attorneys, plaintiff attorneys and many others.
• "Separate from my role as President of SSP, I have my own opinion about the AIG Class Action Lawsuit. Part of my opinion is based upon a lunch I was honored to have in 1997 or 1998 with Hank Greenberg (then CEO of AIG) and Ernie Stempel (then President of North American Operations for AIG Life & Annuity). I remember Mr. Greenberg talking about a huge high-rise building with several floors full of nothing but lawyers. He then informed me AIG spent millions on outside counsel and had other AIG lawyers scattered across the globe. In my opinion, if AIG is right, they are more than adequately equipped to handle this case without help from me or anyone else.
• "Another part of my personal opinion is that I hate structured settlement politics and I am not smart enough or educated enough to know which side is right in this lawsuit. It is a fact, however, that many of my clients cannot chose from a full selection of structured settlement products or product providers - and another fact that my market quotes include fewer companies than they did a few years ago. I wish I could still quote Hartford, for example, but we know what happened after their class action settlement. So, although I can see the AIG battle lines forming, I don't have time for the fight myself. I have an appointment with a widow this afternoon and I only wish I could offer her and her freshly fatherless children a greater assortment of structured settlement options. And if a lawsuit against AIG should ever cause American General to withdraw from the structured settlement market, I would have a still shorter list of companies to offer my clients."

Joe Tombs is currently completing the first year of a two-year term as SSP President. SSP's 2017 Annual Educational Conference is scheduled for March 1-3 in Las Vegas. As Tombs is preparing for this event, he agreed to answer a few additional S2KM questions about SSP's current status and future direction. That interview will appear in a follow-up S2KM blog post.

Misguided Recommendations

In a recent article titled "Time for Congress to Reform Structured Settlements", published April 20, 2015 in the Congress Blog, attorney Richard Risk alleges "Congress’ noble goal of supporting accident victims has been upended by the current system in which insurers and their consultants often deceptively rig structured settlements against accident victims."

To "clean up" the primary structured settlement market, Risk recommends that Congress or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) should take action against "abusive practices" in the structured settlement industry and, "at a minimum", these reforms should include:

1. "Ensure victims have better access to their own structure consultants."
2. "Require diversification in large cases."
3. "Demand better disclosure from the defense."

Even assuming Risk's prognosis is correct, his proposed governmental solution is not - at least not for injury victims who are represented by legal counsel. Each of the three "reforms" Risk highlights falls squarely within the fiduciary role and responsibilities of plaintiff attorneys which encompass settlement planning and negotiation as well as litigation.

In the past, many plaintiff attorneys have relied on defendants and their advisors to make structured settlement proposals and to provide expertise regarding structured settlements. This practice was and continues to be a mistake and could be considered professional malpractice.

Plaintiff attorneys should never rely exclusively on the defense for structured settlement advice. Defense attorneys, structured settlement brokers and other consultants working on the defense side are not engaged to work for the plaintiff or to advise the plaintiff’s attorney. Defense settlement objectives are to secure a full release for all defendants and related parties at a reasonable cost.

A broad range of professionals, including structured settlement consultants, currently provides settlement planning related services to plaintiffs and their attorneys. Most structured settlement consultants belong to one of two primary market structured settlement associations: the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) or the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP).

NSSTA and SSP share a divisive political history which may explain, in part, the indirect critique of NSSTA (whose members are meeting this week in Washington, D.C.) that envelops the article by Risk, an SSP member. Whether intentional or not, Risk's article appears to represent a step backward from recent attempts by leaders of both associations to unify the primary structured settlement market.

During the NSSTA Fall 2014 Conference, for example, SSP President Neil Johnson outlined a "Blueprint for Industry Unification" which he and NSSTA President Kevin Silo continued to discuss at the SSP 2015 Annual Conference in a repeat performance of their "Presidents' Panel". Johnson's appeal for unity characterized "industry disarray" as a "threat to our future." Labeling diversity "good" and disparity "bad", he called for a united front before the public.

In Johnson's words: lack of structured settlement industry unity is "a drain - a drain on financial resources ... a drain on productivity ... a drain on our public image ... a drain on physical and emotional health. Lack of unity diverts attention from productive projects. It always focuses attention on the negative, never on the positive. Lack of industry unity shows no partiality or favoritism for either NSSTA or SSP."

Many structured settlement professionals increasingly recognize the need to acknowledge and address structured settlement industry problems - including the need to improve primary and secondary business practices and standards. Relatively few industry participants, however, are likely to support Risk's proposal for federal legislation and/or regulation to attempt to force defendants to fulfill the fiduciary responsibilities plaintiff attorneys owe to their own clients.

A better solution, in S2KM's opinion, would encompass a combination of structured settlement industry self-regulation and improved education of plaintiff attorneys (and consultants themselves) about the client benefits and professional responsibilities associated with structured settlements in the context of personal injury settlement planning. This solution represents both an opportunity and a challenge for a new generation of structured settlement leaders.

For more detailed analysis about the role and responsibilities of plaintiff attorneys in structured settlements, see chapter 5 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

Structured Settlements in 2012 - 2

Settlement Planning

Compared with the structured settlement primary market, which was characterized by continuing sales declines in 2012, the related settlement planning market appears to have experienced growth and vitality in 2012.

The primary evidence of this growth and vitality consisted of the increasing number of educational conferences addressing settlement planning topics during 2012. These included:

• Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) Annual Meeting
• Risk Settlement Planning Practicum
• Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) Annual Meeting
• Qualified Settlement Fund Symposium
• Various National Academy of Elder Law Attorney (NAELA) Conferences - of which S2KM attended the 2012 Ohio NAELA Unprogram.

One of the challenges for measuring the growth of the settlement planning market is the lack of market metrics. For example, despite continuing market inquiries, S2KM has been unable to identify reliable national market metrics for qualified settlement funds, special needs trusts, settlement trusts, or Medicare set-aside arrangements.

Towers Watson Studies

The most valuable market research for settlement planning S2KM has identified has been the Annual Studies of United States Tort Costs published by Towers Watson (formerly Towers Perrin) since 1985. These studies:

• Calculate tort costs resulting from five insured plus uninsured business lines: 1) commercial multi-peril; 2) medical malpractice; 3) product liability; 4) other liability; and 5) commercial auto.
• Exclude: 1) no-fault auto insurance; 2) property coverages; 3) workers compensation; 4) certain extraordinary (one time) costs.
• In 2002, Towers Watson also translated overall tort costs for 2001 into the following categories and percentages: 1) administrative costs (21%); 2) defense costs (14%); plaintiff attorneys (19%); economic loss (22%) and non-economic loss (24%). Towers Perrin discontinued this portion of its analysis in 2002. It was "devilishly difficult" according to Russ Sutter, a Towers Watson principal and actuary who directs their annual tort cost studies, "primarily because we lack reliable information from plaintiff attorneys". These percentages therefore represented Tower Watson's "best estimate" in 2002.

Based upon Towers Watson's most recent 2011 Annual Study and utilizing Tower Watson's 2002 "best estimate" of payout percentages, S2KM estimates, that at least since 2006, more than $160 billion of United States tort costs annually have represented payments to injury victims and their attorneys.

Settlement Planning Issues

Among many settlement planning issues, S2KM viewed the following as the most strategically important during 2012:

• The evolutionary relationship between structured settlements and settlement planning;
• Comparing these two business models;
• Improving settlement planning by expanding structured settlements;
• What we have learned about the settlement planning market;
• Settlement planning tax challenges - including stress-induced physical ailments;
• How the Affordable Care Act (ACA) impacts settlement planning;
• How states are reforming Medicaid programs to address budgetary shortfalls and the ACA;
• Whether a standard of practice exists for using Medicare set-aside arrangements in liability cases;
• The application of product suitability standards to settlement plans funded with structured settlements;
• The impact of Dodd-Frank's uniform fiduciary standard on settlement planning.

Additional post in S2KM's blog series: "Structured Settlements in 2012":

• Part 1 - Primary market

• Part 2 - Settlement planning

• Part 3 - Secondary market

• Part 4 - Executive Life of New York

NASP 2012 Annual Conference - 2

Celebrating the 10th Anniversary of the enactment of IRC 5891, the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) hosted its 2012 Annual Conference last week in New Orleans.

The conference featured an ambitious and successful educational program highlighting prior NASP accomplishments and focusing on emerging issues that impact both the primary and secondary structured settlement markets. For the first time in NASP's history, conference attendance was open to primary market participants.

S2KM previously published an introductory blog post identifying NASP 2012 conference speakers and topics and providing links to S2KM reports from previous NASP conferences. Subsequent S2KM blog posts will recap speaker presentations.

This blog post offers S2KM's general observations and impressions of some of the broader structured settlement industry issues based upon NASP's 2012 conference.

Why Has Factoring Flourished?

Compared with the primary structured settlement market, both NASP and the secondary market appear to be flourishing. What explains this paradoxical success?

The groundwork for secondary structured settlement market success began in 1997 when NASP launched a strategic lobbying initiative resulting in the enactment of IRC 5891 and NCOIL's Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act (Model Act).

Although neither legislative development would have been possible without support from the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), the lobbying agendas of the two associations were markedly different. Ultimately NASP prevailed on several critical issues including:

• "Best interest" standard vs. NSSTA's preferred "financial hardship" standard.
• Denying annuity owners and providers the right to veto proposed transfers.
• Eliminating maximum discount rates.

In addition to NASP's lobbying success, NASP's members have achieved considerable, and controversial, marketing success utilizing aggressive television advertizing and sophisticated Internet techniques. As one measure of this marketing success, the primary market now claims the secondary market has "stolen the structured settlement brand".

Both the primary and the secondary structured settlement markets were devastated by the 2008 financial crisis which:

• Temporarily shut down asset-backed securities markets including securities backed by structured settlement payment rights.
• Created an industry liquidity crisis which resulted in:
  • J.G. Wentworth, the largest secondary market company, entering bankruptcy in 2009.
  • AIG, the largest primary market company, receiving a financial bailout from the U.S. government in 2008 and 2009.
  • Both Wentworth and AIG have subsequently recovered and regained their respective market leadership roles.
• Reduced interest rates to historic low levels causing a substantial reduction in primary market sales beginning in 2009.

As of the 2012 second calendar quarter, the secondary structured settlement market appears to have fully recovered from the 2008 financial crisis. The primary market has not yet recovered. Part of the reason is that interest rates, whether high or low, affect the primary and secondary structured settlement markets differently.

Other reasons, however, also help explain the growing success of the secondary structured settlement market.

• Structured settlement transfers improve the structured settlement product by addressing a critical need for many structured settlement recipients - a liquidity need that was not properly addressed in the original settlement plan or, alternatively, resulted from unanticipated developments.
• Continuing strong demand exists among some institutional and individual investors for recycled structured settlement payment rights.

Linked Markets - Same Customers

Having failed politically to end structured settlement factoring, NSSTA, and many annuity providers, have adopted alternative strategies which appear to be misguided attempts to create obstacles and impede the growth of the secondary structured settlement market.

NSSTA's 2006 bylaw amendments represent one such example. As NSSTA explained to its members: "because [the secondary market] activities [prohibited by the amendments] are inconsistent with the membership qualifications, engaging in those activities can lead to suspension or expulsion from membership and to denial of new membership applications." (emphasis added).

The increasing "administrative fees" annuity providers charge factoring companies, either as a condition to avoid "opposed transfers" or to allow transfers of life contingent payment rights, represents another example. Ultimately, the structured settlement recipients who transfer payment rights pay for those administrative fees which, for some annuity providers, now represent a new profit center.

How do these types of actions help the structured settlement customer or improve the structured settlement industry?

Both NSSTA and NASP, and their members, share a common existential interest in IRC 104(a)(2) and 130. Both NSSTA and NASP recognize the anticipated re-writing of the U.S. tax code expected to begin following the 2012 Presidential election represents a threat to those tax sections.

Arguably, the existence of IRC 5891, which not only links to IRC 104(a)(2) and 130, but also to the 48 state structured settlement protection statutes, has both expanded and strengthened the U.S. structured settlement legislative framework.

Having collaborated to help enact IRC 5891 and the NCOIL Model Act, shouldn't NSSTA and NASP also collaborate to defend and maintain IRC 104(a)(2) and 130 - and to identify additional shared interests for structured settlement industry improvement and growth?

Improving Industry Education

In his opening comments at the NASP 2012 conference, outgoing NASP President Matthew Bracy challenged attendees to make the structured settlement transfer business better: "better in the marketplace, better in the courts, and above all better for the customers who so need the service this industry provides."

One way NASP "walks the walk" of secondary market improvement is by inviting its critics to speak at NASP conferences. NASP challenges these critics not only to address secondary market problems but also to recommend improvements.

Critics who have spoken at past NASP conferences include: Jack Meligan, Stephen Harris, Peter Vodola, John Darer, and Richard Risk. Other critics, including NSSTA leaders, have been invited but have declined to participate.

Jan Schlichtmann, keynote speaker for the 2012 NASP conference, began by stating: "I don't like your advertizing". He then praised NASP for inviting and encouraging criticism to better itself and the secondary structured settlement market.

NSSTA also has permitted criticism as part of its educational programs. Examples include: Joseph DiGangi (see: "Settlement Consulting") and Dan Clark (see: "SSP and NSSTA 2010 Annual Meetings"). Whenever NSSTA has addressed strategically important and/or controversial issues (egs. IRC 468B and IRC 5891), however, NSSTA members generally hear only "politically correct" speakers and perspectives.

Because of the importance of issues such as qualified settlement funds (QSFs) and the secondary market for the future of structured settlements, NSSTA members increasingly must rely upon non-NSSTA educational programs and educational resources to interact with the people and ideas challenging and changing the structured settlement industry.

During 2012, these educational programs have included: the SSP conference, the ASNP conference, the Risk settlement planning practicum and the QSF symposium.

Fortunately for NSSTA members, as well as members of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP), NASP has now opened an entirely new educational forum to challenge and expand their understanding of structured settlements.

Settlement Planning Market - 1

Following three 2012 settlement planning conferences, what have we learned, and what do we still need to know, before settlement planning can be recognized and analyzed as a business and professional market?

The settlement planning conferences provided:

• Definitions for Settlement Planning - Joseph Tombs, Director of the Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) certification program, defined settlement planning as "a profession helping recipients of settlement proceeds use those proceeds to achieve post-loss goals and transition successfully to post-settlement financial life. Settlement planners represent a blend of several professionals: part tax lawyer, trial lawyer, special needs lawyer, financial planner, annuity specialist, social worker, and medical case worker."
• Descriptions of an Emergent Profession - Several conference speakers described settlement planning as a larger and more complex successor business and profession for structured settlements. For example, Jack Meligan stated: "SSP and its members have been promoting the practice of Settlement Planning as a more comprehensive solution for the financial issues facing personal injury victims and their families, and the profession of Settlement Planning as the next evolutionary step for members of the financial and legal communities that serve these injured Americans."
• Product Introductions and Descriptions - In addition to structured settlement annuities, conference speakers discussed multiple financial and insurance products in the context of settlement planning including: settlement trusts; blended structures; alternative asset management options; market linked CDs; long term care insurance; life insurance; and reinsurance.
• Government Benefit Updates - Integrating financial and insurance products with available government benefits represents one of the most important settlement planning priorities and requires effective interaction among multiple settlement planning participants. The conferences highlighted settlement planning roles for special needs attorneys as well as financial and insurance professionals. In addition, government benefit developments related to settlement planning were discussed including new requirements for liability Medicare Set-Asides (MSAs) and special needs pooled trusts as well as the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act.
• Tax Law Updates and Improvements - In addition to integrating tort settlement proceeds with government benefits, settlement planning requires careful tax planning and specialized document drafting. The SSP conference featured Robert Wood and Jeremy Babener, who provided tax law tips and updates for settlement planners, as well as David Higgins, who proposed a potential tax law alternative to expand the use of structured settlement annuities in settlement planning.
• Business Standards and Practices Discussions - The SSP's "Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners" (SSP Standards) represents a significant accomplishment and valuable industry resource.  Professor Carl Pierce, who helped review and draft the SSP Standards, continued his analysis of related settlement planning issues as part of the Risk Settlement Planning Practicum. Karen Meyers, Director NSSTA's Certified Structured Settlement Consultant (CSSC) program, led a discussion about product suitability during the SSP Annual Meeting.

Unanswered Questions

Despite continuing educational progress, however, certain questions about the settlement planning market still need to be prioritized and addressed before settlement planning becomes a recognized business and profession. Among the most fundamental and important:

• What types of settlements comprise the settlement planning market?
• How large is the settlement planning market?
• Is the settlement planning market increasing or decreasing?
• What informational resources exist to help answer these questions?

Towers Watson Updates

Beginning with the last question, S2KM recommends the Towers Watson updates on "U.S. Tort Cost Trends" as a starting point for discussing the settlement planning market. Since 1985, Towers Watson (and its antecedent Towers Perrin) have published 15 such updates with the most recent 2011 update analyzing U.S. tort costs from 2010. Each study:

• Consists of three components: 1) losses paid to third parties; 2) defense costs; and 3) administrative expenses.
• Calculates tort costs resulting from five insured plus uninsured business lines: 1) commercial multi-peril; 2) medical malpractice; 3) product liability; 4) other liability; and 5) commercial auto;
• Excludes: 1) no-fault auto insurance; 2) property coverages; 3) workers compensation; 4) certain extraordinary (one time) costs - example: tobacco litigation.

Highlights from Towers Watson's "2011 Update on U.S. Tort Cost Trends"

• The tort costs in 2010 ($264.6 billion) were the highest in U.S. history and represent a 5.1% increase from $251.8 billion in 2009. Towers Watson estimates the 2010 U.S. tort system cost approximately $857 per person, versus $820 per person in 2009.
• Towers Watson attributes the increase to the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion and resulting oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Absent the costs from this event, Towers Watson estimates 2010 tort costs would have decreased 2.4% from 2009.
• Since 1984, tort costs as a ratio of U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) have ranged from a low of 1.70% to a high of 2.30% with relatively rapid increases in the ratio during the mid-1980s and early 2000s offset by intermittent and multi-year declines in the ratio.
• Since 1950, even adjusting for inflation, increases in U.S. tort costs have far exceeded U.S. population growth. However, inflation-adjusted tort costs per capita were 16% lower in 2010 than in the peak year of 2004.
• The weak U.S. economy has had a notable impact on commercial auto insurance claims. 2010 tort costs were the lowest since 2000 and 19% lower than 2004.
• Although medical malpractice costs have increased at an average annual rate of 9.7%, versus 7.5% for all other tort costs, since 1975, growth in medical malpractice costs from 2005 to 2010 averaged only 0.3% per year.
• Looking ahead, Towers Watson:
  • Anticipates employee practices litigation to be significant in the future despite the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in favor of Wal-Mart in the sexual discrimination and civil rights class action case Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Betty Dukes et al.
  • Identifies "fracking" (a natural gas drilling process that extracts natural gas from shale by using water and chemicals which could result in contaminated drinking water) as a new area of litigation where defense costs are beginning to mount.

Up until its 2002 update of "U.S. Tort Cost Trends", Towers Watson also translated annual tort costs into the following cost categories (with 2001 percentages): 1) administrative costs - 21%; 2) defense costs - 14%; 3) plaintiff attorneys -19%; 4) economic loss - 22%; and 5) non-economic loss - 24%.

Note: Towers Watson discontinued this latter portion of its analysis in 2002, according to Russ Sutter, a Tillinghast principal and actuary who directs the Towers Watson study, "primarily because we lack reliable information from plaintiff attorneys". These percentages therefore represent Towers Watson's "best estimate" in 2002.

S2KM assumptions: lacking alternative estimates of tort cost payment categories and percentages, Towers Watson's "best estimate" in 2002 for 2001 U.S. tort costs continues to represent the most reliable annual analysis of U.S. tort dollars paid to claimants and their attorneys.

Applying Towers Watson's percentages for 2001 to the results of Towers Watson's analysis of 2010 U.S. tort costs ($264.6 billion total), produces the following assumptive results: 1) administrative costs - $55.6 billion; 2) defense costs - $37.0 billion; 3) plaintiff attorneys - $50.3 billion; 4) economic loss - $58.2 billion; and 5) non-economic loss - $63.5 billion.

Utilizing both Towers Watson's 2011 update of its "U.S. Tort Cost Trends" plus S2KM's assumptions based upon Towers Watson's additional 2002 "best estimate" for 2001 produces the following assumptive results for 2010:

• Economic loss of $58.2 billion plus non-economic loss of $63.5 billion (both amounts presumably paid to claimants) equals $121.7 billion of tort-related dollars paid to claimants.
• $121.7 billion plus $50.3 billion paid to plaintiff attorneys equals $172 billion of tort-related dollars paid to plaintiffs and their attorneys.

S2KM will reference and utilize these 2010 annual assumptive "tort cost results" in subsequent blog posts while continuing to discuss the settlement planning market. For additional S2KM reporting about settlement planning, see the structured settlement wiki.

Settlement Planning 2012 Conferences

During the past two months, S2KM attended and reviewed three national conferences that featured settlement planning issues:

• ASNP 2012 Annual Meeting
• Risk Settlement Planning Practicum - see also: Structured Settlements and Settlement Planning
• SSP 2012 Annual Meeting
  • Part 1
  • Part 2

 In addition to many technical and product presentations (identified and/or summarized in the above links), what did attendees learn about fundamental settlement planning issues?  And what fundamental issues still need to be addressed more directly at future conferences before settlement planning becomes a recognized profession?

Definitions - Three conference participants offered definitions for "settlement planning" and/or "settlement planner":

• Joseph Tombs - "Settlement planning is a profession helping recipients of settlement proceeds use those proceeds to achieve post-loss goals and transition successfully to post-settlement financial life. Settlement planners represent a blend of several professionals: part tax lawyer, trial lawyer, special needs lawyer, financial planner, annuity specialist, social worker, and medical case worker."
• Timothy Morbach - "Settlement planning requires due diligence and informed consent. In that context, settlement planning provides a framework within which settlement stakeholders are able to craft case-specific terms and conditions, legal documents, financial instruments, plus related work product, to resolve claims and achieve safe harbor reflecting their respective best interests."
• Patrick Hindert - "The primary difference between special needs planning and settlement planning is that special needs planning includes clients whose disabilities result from many causes including but not limited to personal injury or workers compensation accidents."
• Note - "Rule 1: Terminology" in the SSP Standards of Professional Conduct provides multiple definitions related to settlement planning including the following for "settlement planner": "a representative who provides advice and other services to a person participating in the design, negotiation or implementation of a settlement or satisfaction of judgment for the benefit of a person claiming a legal entitlement to an award of damages or other compensation. A settlement planner may represent a plaintiff, a defendant, an insurer, a guardian ad litem, an heir of a claimant, an attorney or another person participating in the settlement process."

Emergent Profession - Several conference speakers who discussed settlement planning from a structured settlement perspective described settlement planning as a larger and more complex successor business and profession:

• Joseph DiGangi - "Today we find our industry at a crossroad. In order to move forward, our only choice is to build great business models around the planning first approach. Settlement planning represents a needs-based consultative business model based on benefits, not products."
• Joseph Tombs - "Selling structures is easy. Expectations are low. Any primate can run quote software. A fixed annuity is one of the most simple financial products in the world. We are building a new profession that requires constant education and practice standards. Settlement planning increases expectations and potential liabilities. The more we study and practice settlement planning, the more we realize its complexity and understand its challenges."
• Charles Schell - "The Claims Management model benefits the settlement planning industry and Settlement Planners should acknowledge the benefits which include product marketing and continued protection of IRC sections 104(a)(2) and 130. Concurrently, defense brokers should recognize the benefits of collaborating, rather than competing, with Settlement Planners. These benefits include access to and trust of the customer, an awareness of financial needs and family issues plus multi-product financial solutions that feature structured settlements and enhance their sale."
• Jack Meligan - "SSP and its members have been promoting the practice of Settlement Planning as a more comprehensive solution for the financial issues facing personal injury victims and their families, and the profession of Settlement Planning as the next evolutionary step for members of the financial and legal communities that serve these injured Americans."
• Patrick Hindert - "The structured settlement business models that seem "normal" today began with a choice that made sense in the late 1970s and early 1980s. They have survived despite changes impacting the justification for that choice. Settlement planning is an emergent system in which many different elements interact. Settlement planning is producing a new business model that is influencing all of its constituent elements including structured settlements."

Multi-Professional - The professional backgrounds of conference participants provides some indication of an emerging community of professional practice and its collective knowledge base:

• Special Needs Attorneys - Michele Fuller, David Lillisand; Kevin Urbatsch; Rene Reixach; Jason Lazarus; Annette Hines; Linda Brown; Vincent Russo; Michael Amoruso; Harry Margolis.
• Tax attorneys - Robert Wood; Jeremy Babener; David Higgins.
• Miscellaneous attorneys - Professor Carl Pierce; Richard Risk; Daniel Hindert; Patrick Hindert; Karen Meyers; Mark Popolizio; Steve Riley.
• Settlement Trustees - Travis Finchum; Frank Maguire; Christi Fried; Wesley Cosgriff; James Creel.
• Financial and insurance professionals - Jack Meligan; Charles Schell; Joseph Tombs; Joseph DiGangi; Mark Wahlstrom; Mal Deener; Timothy Morbach; John Woolway; Robert Noack; Paul Hansen; Major General James W. Comstock; Anthony Prieto; Robert Birney; Jerry Hulick.
• Medicare Set-Aside Specialist - Douglas Shaw.
• Lien Resolution Specialist - Daniel Alverez.
• Note: none of the conferences featured guardian ad litems, life care planners or damage allocators as speakers.

Unanswered Questions - From S2KM's perspective, future settlement planning conferences need to more directly address the following issues:

• How large is the United States settlement planning market?
• Who comprises (and selects) the settlement planning team?
• What criteria and process (e.g. request for proposal) are appropriate for selecting members of the settlement planning team?
• What professional licenses and certifications are applicable?
• What primary laws and regulations apply to settlement planning?
• What work product does each settlement planning team member provide?
• Who integrates their individual work product into a settlement plan - and how?
• When is a settlement plan appropriate?
• What are the standard components of a settlement plan?
• What are the product suitability and disclosure standards for settlement planning?
• What does a settlement plan cost?
• What other metrics (besides cost) are appropriate for evaluating the success of a settlement plan?
• How are settlement planning team members compensated?
• What alternative compensation methods and/or business models would allow settlement planning to become more efficient and/or reduce costs?
• Once implemented, who has responsibility to monitor and/or amend the settlement plan?
• What are the Defendant’s responsibilities and duties in settlement planning?

For professionals and product providers interested in learning more about settlement planning, see:

• The Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) website.
• The Registry of Settlement Planners (RSP) website
• The structured settlement wiki - settlement planning page

Structured Settlements and Settlement Planning

Selected video presentations from the Risk Settlement Planning Practicum are now posted online including Patrick Hindert's "History of Structured Settlements".  The conference, hosted April 13-14, 2012 by the University of Tulsa College of Law and attended by attorneys and law students, is believed to be the first law school conference about settlement planning.

Additional practicum presenters and topics - with online video links when available:

• Richard Risk - Introduction
• Joseph Tombs - Overview of Settlement Planning
• Professor Carl Pierce - Standards of Professional Conduct
• Jack Meligan - Pitfalls in Settlement Planning
• Jeremy Babener - Taxation in Personal Injury Cases
• Mark Popolizio - How Medicare Impacts Settlement Planning

Hindert, Managing Director of The Settlement Services Group (TSSG), primary author of "Beyond Structured Settlements" and co-author of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) provided a 75 minute discussion explaining the historical and evolutionary relationship between structured settlements and settlement planning. The discussion featured  diagrams by Timothy Morbach:

• Traditional Structured Settlement Funding
• Structured Settlement History
• Settlement Planning - with Structured Settlement Funding
• Structured Settlement Transfer

Hindert's discussion:

• Portrayed settlement planning as an emergent system with structured settlements as a core component.
• Highlighted increasing complexity and variations within the structured settlement life cycle.
• Emphasized the concomitant need for compliance and accountability to satisfy changing legislative and regulatory requirements.
• Specifically addressed: qualified settlement funds; special needs trusts; structured settlement transfers; and the ELNY liquidation.

SSP 2012 Annual Meeting - 1

The French author and poet Victor Hugo has been translated and quoted as saying: "There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come."

Has the time come for "settlement planning" to be recognized as a powerful idea deserving professional study and status in the United States? Recent conferences, including the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) 2012 Annual Meeting, suggest that settlement planning is becoming both an important profession and an alternative business model for the structured settlement industry.

As a foundation for professional status, SSP has previously developed the Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) Program and adopted Standards of Professional Conduct. The 2012 Annual Meeting, held April 30 - May 1 in Las Vegas, featured presentations by leading settlement planning practitioners and subject matters experts. In addition, several product providers introduced insurance and financial products to complement the traditional structured settlement annuity.

What is settlement planning? Joseph Tombs, a former SSP President and co-founder of the RSP program, defines settlement planning as "... a profession helping recipients of settlement proceeds use those proceeds to achieve post-loss goals and transition successfully to post-settlement financial life."

What is a settlement planner? The SSP Standards of Professional Conduct define "settlement planner" as "... a representative who provides advice and other services to a person participating in the design, negotiation or implementation of a settlement or satisfaction of judgment for the benefit of a person claiming a legal entitlement to an award of damages or other compensation."

SSP conference Keynote Speaker Michael Ellsberg, author of "The Power of Eye Contact" and "The Education of Millionaires", discussed how to "Invest in Your Own Human Capital".

Settlement Planning Practitioners and Subject Matter Experts and Topics:

• 2011 SSP President Jack Meligan - SSP Accomplishments
• 2012 SSP President Charles Schell - SSP Goals
• Joseph DiGangi - Reinventing the Settlement Industry
• Douglas Shaw - Medicare Liens
• Robert Wood - Tax Update
• Jeremy Babener - Settlement Agreements and IRS Challenges
• Karen Meyers - Suitability Standards
• Patrick Hindert - Settlement Planning Business Models
• David Higgins - Litigation Rollover Accounts
• Jason Lazurus - Liability MSAs
• Frank Maguire - Overcoming Stalled Markets
• Mark Wahlstrom - Market Trends and Challenges
• Daniel Hindert - The ELNY Liquidation
• Richard Risk - History of Settlement Planning
• Dan Alverez - Lien Resolution
• Joseph Tombs - The RSP Program

Settlement Planning Product Providers

• Wesley Cosgriff - Secured Futures Trust
• John Woolway - Vantage Investment Partners
• Robert Noack - Aequitas Capital Management
• Christi Fried - Continental Trust Services
• Paul Hansen - Morgan Stanley Smith Barney
• Major General James W. Comstock (ret.) - Alternative Design Insurance Services
• Anthony Prieto - Synergy Settlement Services
• James Creel - First Capital Surety & Trust Co.
• Robert Burney - Integrity Financial, Inc.
• Mal Deener - Symetra Life Insurance Company (on behalf of Berkshire Hathaway Life Insurance and National Indemnity)

In subsequent blog posts, S2KM will review selected SSP conference topics. For S2KM reporting of prior SSP meetings, see the structured settlement wiki.

Alternative Business Models

The future of structured settlements depends upon which of two alternative business models ultimately prevails - the traditional (defense-controlled) claim management model or the emerging (claimant centric) settlement planning model. (Note: see Addendum).

The Claim Management Model

The claim management business model was developed by members of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), which is hosting its 2012 Annual Meeting this week in Washington, D.C. The claim management model has dominated the United States structured settlement industry since the enactment of the Periodic Payment Settlement Act in 1982. Its general characteristics:

• Defense control resulting from defense funding;
• Defense-approved lists of annuity providers and brokers;
• Proactive case identification and negotiation participation by defendants designed to sell structured settlements;
• De minimus regulation of sales conduct resulting in a lack of:
  • Disclosure - of compensation sharing and/or conflicts of interest;
  • Product suitability standards; and/or
  • Informed written consent by structured settlement recipients.
• Political and case-specific opposition to single claimant 468B qualified settlement funds (QSFs);
• A hostile view of the secondary structured settlement market.

The business justification for the claim management business model for defendants and liability insurers:

• Reduce claim costs by utilizing structured settlements; and
• Protect themselves from future risks by utilizing qualified assignments.

The traditional cost/risk analysis of the claim management model, however, does not adequately consider the impact on defendants of:

• Negotiating and defending damages using structured settlements funded with historically low interest rates;
• The added claim management costs specifically resulting from review of structured settlement-related file documentation;
• Potential accountability and liability resulting from:
  • Increasing legislative and regulatory protection for consumers and investors;
  • Defendant status as deep pocket originators of long-term payment promises with complex life-cycles;
  • Sales activities by defendant employees, attorneys and agents without qualified compliance supervision.

The Settlement Planning Model

As defendants and liability insurers re-think the traditional claim management structured settlement model, they should also investigate (for their own self-interest) an emerging, alternative structured settlement business model - the settlement planning model.

What is settlement planning? Joseph Tombs, a former President of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and co-founder of the Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) program, defines settlement planning as "... a profession helping recipients of settlement proceeds use those proceeds to achieve post-loss goals and transition successfully to post-settlement financial life."

What is a settlement planner? The SSP Standards of Professional Conduct define "settlement planner" as "... a representative who provides advice and other services to a person participating in the design, negotiation or implementation of a settlement or satisfaction of judgment for the benefit of a person claiming a legal entitlement to an award of damages or other compensation."

Although:

• The SSP Standards recognizes that "a settlement planners may represent a plaintiff, a defendant, an insurer, a guardian ad litem, an heir of the claimant, an attorney or another person participating in the settlement services", settlement planning is more "claimant centric" than the claim management model and involves a commensurate reallocation of responsibilities and risks away from defendants and liability insurers.
• Not dependent upon QSFs, the settlement planning model recognizes that QSFs provide important advantages and protections for plaintiffs and defendants.
• Product neutral, the settlement planning model recognizes structured settlement represents a core settlement planning tool that combines relatively low investment and dissipation risks.

The basic characteristics of the settlement planning model and professional, as outlined by Joseph DiGangi at the NSSTA 2009 Winter Meeting:

• Planning orientation
• Solutions before products
• Blended products and services
• Product neutrality
• Disclosure and informed consent
• Professional training and designations
• Comprehensive skill sets and knowledge base

From a claimant centric perspective, the settlement planning process includes five stages:

• Needs assessment
• Design
• Negotiation
• Implementation
• Monitoring

 Multiple professional associations and 2012 conferences are now studying various components and issues related to the settlement planning business model:

• The Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) - S2KM attended and reviewed the ASNP 2012 Annual Meeting.
• Risk Settlement Planning Practicum - Hosted by the University of Tulsa Law School, S2KM reviewed this settlement planning conference whose presenters included Patrick Hindert, S2KM's primary blog author. Hindert spoke about the "History of Structured Settlements" and provided a schematic analysis of the structured settlement business cycle.
• Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) - S2KM will attend and review the SSP 2012 Annual Meeting April 30 - May 1 in Las Vegas. Among the presenters, Hindert will address "Settlement Planning Business Models: the Defense Perspective"

ADDENDUM (April 26, 2012): After reading S2KM's blog post, Charles Schell, President-Elect of SSP, asked the following question (which Schell promised to address at the SSP Annual Meeting): "Is it necessary for one or the other business model to prevail or could each side benefit by recognizing the role of the other?"

For additional information about settlement planning (aka settlement consulting or special needs settlement planning), see the structured settlement wiki.

Risk Settlement Planning Practicum

Sheltered from the violent storms that unleashed dozens of tornadoes across Oklahoma and the plains states on April 13-14, 2012, the University of Tulsa College of Law hosted the Richard B. Risk Jr. Settlement Planning Practicum which organizers believe was the first time any law school has sponsored a settlement planning educational conference.

Risk, a national authority on structured settlement law and one of the founders of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP), endowed the settlement planning practicum which is expected to become an annual event for attorneys and law students. Risk invited and introduced the practicum presenters in the following speaking order: Joseph Tombs, Patrick Hindert, Mark Popolizio, Jeremy Babener, Jack Meligan and Professor Carl Pierce.

Joseph Tombs

Tombs, a lawyer, certified financial planner and former SSP President who, working with Risk, helped organize the Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) certification program, addressed "Common Issues Attorneys Face When Settling Cases". As part of his presentation, Tombs contrasted settlement planning and financial planning. One primary difference, according to Tombs, is the relative importance in settlement planning of "dissipation risk". Other differentiating factors identified by Tombs include the importance of: government benefits, medical forecasting and special needs legal issues. Tombs discussed structured settlements as a core settlement planning tool that combines relatively low investment and dissipation risks.

Tombs emphasized the multi-professional skill sets settlement planning requires and described settlement planning as an evolving profession stating: "The more we study and practice settlement planning, the more we realize its complexity and understand its challenges." He offered the following definition for settlement planning: "a profession helping recipients of settlement proceeds use those proceeds to achieve post-loss goals and transition successfully to post-settlement financial life."

Patrick Hindert

In his presentation titled "The History of Structured Settlements", Hindert (co-author of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" and author of S2KM's blog) provided a visual analysis featuring schematic diagrams to explain how structured settlement has evolved from a claim management tool into a core component of the larger and more complex settlement planning profession - and how competing business models have restricted the growth of the structured settlement annuity market.

Hindert stated key structured settlement stakeholders have succumbed to "path dependence" by failing to strategically study and analyze continuing industry changes. Structured settlement business models and practices that once made sense and represented "industry standards", according to Hindert, have survived despite the eclipse of their justification, benefit and/or better alternatives.

Hindert described settlement planning as an "emergent system" and quoted John McWhorter, a linguist at Columbia University, to help explain the significance for structured settlements:

"Emergent systems [settlement planning] are ones in which many different elements interact. The pattern of interaction then produces a new element [settlement planning] that is greater than the sum of the parts, which then exercises a top-down influence on the constituent elements [including structured settlements]."

To improve and grow the structured settlement market, Hindert recommended more detailed and comprehensive study of alternative structured settlement payment models and life cycles within the broader context of settlement planning as an important and necessary first step.

Mark Popolizio

A nationally recognized legal authority in Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) compliance and a current board member of the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP), Popolizio addressed how Medicare impacts settlement planning. Starting with an introductory Medicare road map, he next discussed CMS' reimbursement rights for conditional Medicare payments - who is at risk; what is Medicare's recovery amount; how to challenge conditional payments; how to obtain information; CMS' most recently announced policies and payment options; and recent case law developments.

Popolizio also discussed Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs), in the context of both workers compensation and liability cases, as CMS' recommended method for protecting Medicare's future interests under the MSP Act. For liability cases, he began by emphasizing why the key issue is not: "Are liability MSAs required?" Instead, Popolizio reviewed two recent CMS memoranda providing informal information about how CMS looks at liability MSAs. Finally, Popolizio offered his own recommendations (a three-step process) for approaching the liability MSA issue and also reviewed recent related case law.

Jeremy Babener

Babener, a rising star among structured settlement legal and tax experts, offered a comprehensive overview of "Taxation in Personal Injury Cases". He began by outlining sources for tax authority, the variables for tax liability and the character of income. Next, he discussed the exclusion for personal injury damages and explained the language of IRC 104(a)(2) before addressing other damages in personal injury cases - past and future medical expenses; punitive damages; and pre and post-judgment interest.

Babener explained the importance of documentation, including the complaint and the settlement agreement, to maximize the exclusion for personal injury damages. He highlighted specific facts that frequently create problems with the IRS and conversely how to encourage the IRS to respect the documents so as to obtain the preferred tax result. Babener concluded by addressing these additional settlement tax considerations: legal expenses; structured settlements; qualified settlement funds; and transfers of structured settlement payment rights.

Jack Meligan

Meligan, a founder and current President of the SSP, discussed "Pitfalls in Settlement Planning and How to Avoid Malpractice"; offered reasons why personal injury claimants and their attorneys need settlement planning advice from a qualified professional or team of professionals; and reviewed an example of a settlement plan. In addition, Meligan:

• Summarized three cases (Grillo; Lyons; and Spencer) to demonstrate why structured settlements need to be considered and risks associated with certain business behavior;
• Cited statistics from American Bar Association studies to underscore the frequency and risk of malpractice cases against personal injury attorneys;
• Spotlighted danger areas for plaintiff attorneys: MSP compliance; deductability of attorney fees; and documentation of confidentiality clauses; and
• Cautioned plaintiff attorneys against failing to retain an independent settlement advisor; or to advise their clients about all settlement options (including the pros and cons of structured settlements); or to completely document their files as proof of their best practices.

Professor Carl Pierce

Professor Pierce is the W. Allen Separk Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Howard Baker, Jr. Center for Public Policy at the University of Tennessee. Among his professional activities, Professor Pierce has served as Reporter for the Tennessee Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professionalism and as Associate Reporter for the American Bar Association Special Commission on Evaluation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. During 2007-2008, Professor Pierce served as Consultant to the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and helped review and draft the SSP's Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners (SSP Standards).

Professor Pierce provided a summary comparative analysis of both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) Statement of Ethics and Professional Responsibility (NSSTA Code of Ethics) and the SSP Standards. Despite substantial experience working with litigators, Professor Pierce acknowledged surprise by the degree of hostility between some plaintiff and defense structured settlement consultants. Professor Pierce:

• Observed that all law school graduates need some exposure to structured settlements and settlement planning;
• Suggested that the business collaboration models among insurance companies, plaintiff attorneys and settlement planners could look very different in the future; and
• Recommended that representatives of NSSTA and SSP meet to discuss and compare their respective statements of ethics and standards.

Congratulations to Richard Risk, the University of Tulsa College of Law and the guest speakers who participated in the Settlement Planning Practicum. S2KM understands that Tulsa College of Law will publish a video compilation of the practicum speaker presentations on YouTube.