by Structured Settlement Watchdog
I surveyed another plaintiff attorney with the hypothetical yesterday, and the feedback indicated that extreme disappointment would result if a settlement planner were to approach one of their clients, whose structured settlement they helped establish, to solicit a structured settlement factoring transaction for compensation.
This afternoon, I spoke with a well-regarded Texas structured settlement broker and financial planner who agrees with the growing consensus that it's a conflict of interest to "double dip" on fees—first when creating a structured settlement and again during a structured settlement factoring transaction (structured settlement transfer or "structured settlement destruction," whether full or partial).
From what I hear, the spin that some of the "ipso structured settlement factos" are putting on this to lawyers is that they will survey all the factoring companies and then get them the best deal. Mind you, the best deal might involve a hefty deep discount plus the ipso structured settlement facto's commission.
I have heard that one broker may have canvassed a judge or two for access to such cases that the judge sees in his or her Court. Where does it stop? I expect to get a copy of that solicitation shortly and will post here as soon as I do.
Why do certain structured settlement brokers and settlement planners (… for the reading public, clearly a minority) feel that this is necessary? Is it Fear? Is it Greed? Or is it plain career or organization suicide?
One of the "dwindling minority" tried to justify the inclusion of factoring (transfer) companies in the structured settlement mix as part of the process of "gathering money to do things to make it a more equal marketplace". Surely one can find a better way to raise money that is not in conflict with being "dedicated to improving the lives of personal injury victims using structured settlements"***.
**Richard Dawson-Family Feud"
***Introducing the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) 2003…
Leave a Reply