Structured Settlements 4Real®Blog 2026

by John Darer® CLU ChFC MSSC RSP CLTC

Brian Baxter of American Lawyer Daily seems to be handling the Scott Rothstein Fraud like it's a lost sock in the laundry—barely worth the effort.

In an article published Friday the 13th Baxter states "The unfolding fraud scandal involving high-rolling South Florida lawyer Scott Rothstein raises questions about the nature of structured settlements. Did Rothstein manipulate these financial arrangements to his advantage or concoct something else entirely?

Baxter drops a link to the Wikipedia page for structured settlements, but if he had actually bothered to read it, he’d realize that Rothstein’s scheme was a completely different circus with entirely new clowns

Furthermore, given what we know so far is there any reason to believe anything that Scott Rothstein has said?

For those researching structured settlements and writing stories about Scott Rothstein, please refer to the following flow chart, which accurately outlines the process of a genuine structured settlement transaction.

If any reporter examines this chart and subsequently reviews mainstream media accounts of the alleged money flow in the Rothstein scam, it becomes evident that the label is being used to misrepresent what truly occurred.

Baxter's ill informed article states "the traditional structured settlement is essentially an annuity. If, for example, a law firm were to settle a major case with the City of Miami that would pay out over one year, the firm might go to its lender bank and ask to borrow against the settlement. But when a settling party has a sketchier track record of creditworthiness, plaintiffs can sell their settlement stake to investors who assume the risk at a premium"

Fact:  A structured settlement is not a product, it is a method for paying damages that has its foundation in various sections of the Internal Revenue Code

Fact:  A structured settlement can be funded with annuities or obligations of the United States government. Source: IRC 130(d)

Fact: The "structured settlement" example used by Baxter describes a legal financing transaction for lawyers.

Edward H. Davis , Jr.(pictured above), a Miami lawyer with Astigarraga Davis who specializes in asset recovery is asked to weigh in.  Davis was cited to have said "Structured settlements are basically people buying annuities at a discount, but they come with a risk, because presumably the person or entity that owes the money could default."

Fact: Edward H. Davis, Jr. has no bona fides on the subject of structured settlements. Click here for his professional biography as it appears on his firm's web site.

Fact: Structured settlements are not "basically people buying annuities at a discount".

Comment: By publishing Edward Davis ' quote Baxter simply makes himself and AmLaw look like a horse's ass. Consider that Baxter and AmLaw link to the definition of structured settlement in Wikipedia and then quote a lawyer, who has no bona fides on the subject, who says something that conflicts with the Wikipedia definition and the structured settlement definition that one can find in the Internal Revenue Code.

Baxter trips over his own tail yet again with the claim, "Lending money to litigants isn't new. People involved in expensive civil suits who need financial help are willing to pay high yields to borrow money. Rothstein, lawyers say, likely spotted a way to profit by acting as the middleman, finding investors to advance reduced settlement funds to plaintiffs." Come on, man, that's pre-settlement financing, not structured settlements!

In a response to LBN colleague Mark Wahlstrom who expressed similar concerns to mine in comments on the AMLaw blog, Baxter says "thanks for the feedback. I understand the sensitivity to the linkage between Rothstein and structured settlements, but the fact remains that this is what the lawyers closest to the situation are saying at the moment.

I tried to show in the post above how Rothstein allegedly warped the template of structured settlements to suit his own needs, not cast aspersions on the nature of those settlements themselves. The fact is that Rothstein is raising these questions himself by beating the structured settlement drum.

Until prosecutors file charges against Rothstein I think we'll all be pretty much in the dark as to what exactly transpired here".

Baxter's response to Wahlstrom comes across as an attempt to conceal insufficient research. Nonetheless, I encourage him and other journalists to continue their investigations and consult credible sources with expertise on structured settlements.

Just a week ago weren't we reading an article from Harriet Bracky's column in the FL Sun-Sentinel: