Without naming names, I’ve now heard from more than one source that structured settlement consultants were offered the opportunity to do structured settlement work for a New York law firm on purportedly $30 million in annual structured annuity premium in exchange for "a point" (25%) of their commissions. One of my sources indicated that purportedly the firm in question obtained a favorable ethics opinion on the practice.
Setting aside the economic wisdom of the concept, what is the difference between this and a "3 and 1 deal" with a licensed insurance broker subsidiary of an insurance company? Assuming it passes muster with the state insurance commissioner (e.g. say the law firm is structuring its fees), what value does paying off the law firm provide to the law firm’s client, the plaintiff?
I just hope some of the "brilliant minds" that came up with the "3 and 1" on the insurance side (some of whom are now making a foray into the plaintiff side of the business) aren’t behind this.
Those that seek to commoditize a business that requires a high level of skill and expertise, a high level of continuing education and intellectual capacity don’t really understand the business.
.
Leave a Reply