Litigation

Industry colleague and LBN CEO Mark Wahlstrom has been running a 2 week online "pep talk" to settlement industry professionals on how to work out the kinks in the industry. During this time he has been meting out barbs about excesses on both sides of the fence.

This week he has turned his turrets on the plaintiff brokers.  The structured settlement watchdog would like to remind readers that he supports a centrist position where the settlement consultant is a qualified expert. As I stated recently, in my opinion, it doesn't matter the "orientation " of your structured settlement expert if he or she is not reliable and the information he or she provides isn't good.

For a period of time the left wing extremists of the structured settlement industry have hocked the "wolf in sheep's clothing theory" to elevate themselves to trial lawyers, or the even more cynical "we were here first so we're better" nugget.  While I certainly don't count Wahlstrom among this group in his recent piece, he warns of "Brokers who state they are a ?plaintiff experts? when in fact they are opportunists who work for whomever has the power in a particular case or transaction.  One of the biggest trends of the last 5 to 7 years is the almost comical rush by previously "defense exclusive" structured settlement brokers to re-brand themselves as plaintiff experts. In many cases their only pitch to trial lawyers is that " we worked for the casualty companies for years and we can get your case settled faster because they know us and trust us." Really? If your competitive position is that you are exploiting your long standing relationship with defendants for your new "friends" in the plaintiff bar, simply so you can get a commission, can I also assume you would just as quickly sell out a plaintiff if it meant you getting paid by a defendant. In short, these guys blow with the wind and who ever pays best and are no more friends of plaintiffs then a fox is friends with a barn full of chickens".

"Food for thought"?

1. (a)A number of leading plaintiff lawyers were once defense lawyers and some use the same marketing pitch to plaintiffs. (b) A number of lawyers I know are Vietnam vets. Some might have been subjected to being branded as "child killers" by the ignorant masses of the time (c) a number of prominent "plaintiff" structured settlement brokers, including some of the aformentioned left wingers cut their teeth on the defense side.

I don't consider it comical if the person is is rebranding, if they possess the knowledge,  integrity, professional qualities and desire to learn new things and stay current, can articulate the fundamentals and advanced concepts properly and generally, enhance the profession.

2. The orientation of your broker or settlement consultant doesn't matter if the information they provide isn't good. As I have pointed out in this forum over the last 5 years, financial faux pas have been observed on both sides of the settlement industry spectrum.

3. Trust is something that is earned, individual by individual.

4. Since structured settlement brokers are paid by commission and the commission is the same regardless of which life insurance company the structured settlement is placed with the defense cannot pay you more than the plaintiff and vice versa.

5. One prominent plaintiff broker, a former military guy even took the mantra  "improvise , adapt , overcome" to new levels by purportedly offering to be the exclusive plaintiff broker for a leading New York medical malpractice insurer.