Category: Communication Media & Internet

CMS Issues Calendar Year 2023 Home Health Final Rule

On November 4, 2022, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published the calendar year 2023 Home Health Prospective Payment System Rate final rule, which updates Medicare payment policies and rates for home health agencies.  Some of the key changes implemented by the final rule are summarized below.

  • Home Health Payment Rates. Instead of imposing a significant rate cut, as was included in the proposed rule released earlier this year, CMS has increased calendar year 2023 Medicare payments to home health agencies by 0.7 percent or $125 million in comparison to calendar year 2022.

 

  • Patient-Driven Groupings Model and Behavioral Changes. A -3.925 percent permanent adjustment to the 30-day payment rate has been implemented for calendar year 2023. The purpose of this adjustment is to ensure that aggregate expenditures under the new patient-driven groupings model payment system are equal to what they would have been under the old payment system. Additional permanent adjustments are expected to be proposed in future rulemaking.

 

  • Permanent Cap on Wage Index Decreases. The rule finalizes a permanent 5 percent cap on negative wage index changes for home health agencies.

 

  • Recalibration of Patient-Driven Groupings Model Case-Mix Weights. CMS has finalized the recalibration of the case-mix weights, including the functional levels and co-morbidity adjustment subgroups and the low utilization payment adjustment thresholds, using calendar year 2021 data in an effort to more accurately pay for the types of patients home health agencies are serving.

 

  • Telehealth. CMS plans to begin collecting data on the use of telecommunications technology under the home health benefit on a voluntary basis beginning on January 1, 2023, and on a mandatory basis beginning on July 1, 2023. Further program instruction for reporting this information on home health claims is expected to be issued in January of 2023.

 

  • Home Infusion Therapy Benefit. The Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers for June 2022 is 9.1 percent and the corresponding productivity adjustment is a reduction of 0.4 percent. Therefore, the final home infusion therapy payment rate update for calendar year 2023 is an increase of 8.7 percent. The standardization factor, the final geographic adjustment factors, national home infusion therapy payment rates, and locality-adjusted home infusion therapy payment rates will be posted on CMS’ Home Infusion Therapy Services webpage once the rates are finalized.

 

  • Finalization of All-Payer Policy for the Home Health Quality Reporting Program. CMS has ended the temporary suspension of Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS) data collection on non-Medicare/non-Medicaid home health agency patients. Beginning in calendar year 2027, home health agencies will be required to submit all-payer OASIS data, with two quarters of data required for program year 2027. A phase-in period will occur from January 1, 2025 through June 30, 2025, and during that time the failure to submit the data will not result in a penalty.

 

  • Health Equity Request for Information. The comments received from stakeholders providing feedback on health equity measure development for the Home Health Quality Reporting Program and the potential future application of health equity in the Home Health Value-Based Purchasing Expanded Model’s scoring and payment methodologies are summarized in the final rule.

 

  • Baseline Years in the Expanded Home Health Value-Based Purchasing (HHVBP) Model. For the Expanded Home Health Value-Based Purchasing Expanded Model, CMS is: updating definitions, changing the home health agency baseline calendar year (from 2019 to 2022 for existing home health agencies with a Medicare certification date prior to January 1, 2019, and from 2021 to 2022 for home health agencies with a Medicare certification date prior to January 1, 2022); and changing the model baseline calendar year from 2019 to 2022 starting in 2023.

For more Health Care legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

Dead Canary in the LBRY

In a case watched by companies that offered and sold digital assets1 Federal District Court Judge Paul Barbadoro recently granted summary judgment for the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) against LBRY, Inc.2 This case is seen by some as a canary in the coalmine in that the decision supports the SEC’s view espoused by SEC Chairman Gary Gensler that nearly all digital assets are securities that were offered and sold in violation of the securities laws.3 For FinTech companies hoping to avoid SEC enforcement actions, the LBRY decision strongly suggests that all companies offering digital assets could be viewed by courts as satisfying the Howey test for investment contract securities.4

LBRY is a company that promised to use blockchain technology to allow users to share videos and images without the need for third-party intermediaries like YouTube or Facebook. LBRY offered and sold LBRY Credits, called LBC tokens, that would compensate participants of their blockchain network and would be spent by LBRY users on things like publishing content, tipping content creators, and purchasing paywall content. At launch, LBRY had pre-mined 400 million LBC for itself, and approximately 600 million LBC would be available in the future to compensate miners. LBRY spent about half of the 400 million LBC tokens on various endeavors, such as direct sales and using the tokens to incentivize software developers and software testers.

Judge Barbadoro concluded as a matter of law (i.e., that no reasonable jury could conclude otherwise) that the LBC tokens were securities under Section 5 of the Securities Act. Applying the Howey test, Judge Barbadoro noted the only prong of the Howey test that was disputed in the case was: Did investors buy LBC tokens “with an expectation of profits to be derived solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party”? Judge Barbadoro answered resoundingly, “Yes.”

Most important to his conclusion that investors purchased LBC tokens with the expectations of profits solely through the efforts of the promoter (i.e., LBRY) were: the many statements made by LBRY employees and community representatives about the price of LBC and trading volume of LBC; and many statements that LBRY made about the development of its content platform, including how the platform would yield long-term value to LBC holders. Critically, however, Judge Barbadoro found that even if LBRY had made none of these statements, the LBC token would still constitute a security because “any reasonable investor who was familiar with the company’s business model would have understood the connection” between LBC value growth and LBRY’s efforts to grow the use of its network. Even if LBRY had never said a word about the LBC token, Judge Barbadoro found that the LBC token would constitute a security because LBRY retained hundreds of millions of LBC tokens for themselves, thus signaling to investors that it was committed to working to improve the value of the token.

Judge Barbadoro flatly rejected LBRY’s defense that the LBC token cannot be a security because the token has utility.5 The judge noted, “Nothing in the case law suggests that a token with both consumptive and speculative uses cannot be sold as an investment contract.” Likewise, Judge Barbadoro was unmoved by LBRY’s argument that it had no “fair notice” that the SEC would treat digital assets as unregistered securities simply because this was the first time the SEC had brought an enforcement action against an issuer of digital currency.6

In sum, if Judge Barbadoro’s reasoning is applied more broadly to the thousands of digital assets that have emerged over the last several years—including companies that tout the so called “utility” of their tokens—they will all likely be deemed digital asset securities that were offered and sold without a registration or an exemption from registration.

The LBRY decision is yet another case in which a court has concluded a digital asset is a security. Developers of digital assets must proceed with a high degree of caution. The SEC continues to display a high degree of willingness to initiate investigations and enforcement actions against issuers of digital assets that are viewed as securities under the Howey and Reeves tests, investment companies, or security-based swaps.

For more Securities Law and Digital Assets news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright ©2022 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

FOOTNOTES

1 The SEC defines “digital assets” as intangible “asset[s] that [are] issued and transferred using distributed ledger or blockchain technology.” Statement on Digital Asset Securities Issuance and Trading, Division of Corporation Finance, Division of Investment Management, and Division of Trading and Markets, SEC (Nov. 16, 2018), available here.

2 SEC v. LBRY, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-00260-PB (D.N.H. filed Mar. 29, 2021), available here. A copy of the complaint against LBRY can be found here.

3 See, e.g., Gary Gensler, Speech – “A ‘New’ New Era: Prepared Remarks Before the International Swaps and Derivatives Association Annual Meeting” (May 11, 2022) (“My predecessor Jay Clayton said it, and I will reiterate it: Without prejudging any one token, most crypto tokens are investment contracts under the Supreme Court’s Howey Test.”), available here. Section 5(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) provides that, unless a registration statement is in effect as to a security, it is unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to sell securities in interstate commerce. Section 5(c) of the Securities Act provides a similar prohibition against offers to sell or offers to buy securities unless a registration statement has been filed.

4 SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946). This case did not address when digital assets could be deemed debt securities under the test articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 66-67 (1990), or when digital assets could be deemed an investment company under the Investment Company Acy of 1940. See, e.g., In the Matter of Blockfi Lending, Feb. 14, 2022, available here. This case also does not address when a digital asset is a security-based swap. See, e.g., In the Matter of Plutus Financial, Inc., (July 13, 2020), available here.

5 The argument a digital asset is not a security because it has “utility” is a favorite argument of critics of the SEC’s enforcement actions against issuers of digital assets. Unfortunately, the “utility” argument appears to be of little merit when the digital asset is offered and sold to raise capital.

6 This is an argument that has been made by a number of defendants in SEC enforcement actions involving digital asset securities.

“Red Flags in the Mind Set”: SEC Sanctions Three Broker/Dealers for Identity Theft Deficiencies

In 1975, around the time of “May Day” (1 May 1975), which brought the end of fixed commission rates and the birth of registered clearing agencies for securities trading (1976), the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) created a designated unit to deal with the growth of trading and the oversight of broker/dealers. That unit, the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (the “OCIE”), evolved and grew over time. It regularly issued Risk Alerts on specific topics aimed at Broker/Dealers and/or Investment Advisers, expecting that those addressees would take appropriate steps to prevent the occurrence of the identified risk, or at least mitigate its impact on customers. On Sept. 15, 2020, the OCIE issued a Risk Alert entitled “Cybersecurity: Safeguarding Client Accounts against Credential Compromise,” which emphasized the importance of compliance with SEC Regulation S-ID, the “Identity Theft Red Flags Rule,” adopted May 20, 2013, under Sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “34 Act”) and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “40 Act”). See, in that connection, the discussion of this and related SEC cyber regulations in my Nov. 19, 2020, Blog “Credential Stuffing: Cyber Intrusions into Client Accounts of Broker/Dealers and Investment Advisors.”

The SEC was required to adopt Regulation S-ID by a provision in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which amended a provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 (“FCRA”) to add both the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to the federal agencies that must have “red flag” rules. That “red flag” requirement for the seven federal prudential bank regulators and the Federal Trade Commission was made part of the FCRA by a 2003 amendment. Until Wednesday, July 27, 2022, the SEC had (despite the Sept. 15, 2020, Risk Alert) brought only one enforcement action for violating the “Red Flag” Rule (in 2018 when customers of the firm involved suffered harm from the identity thefts). In 2017, however, the Commission created a new unit in its Division of Enforcement to better address the growing risks of cyber intrusion in the U.S. capital markets, the Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit (“CACU”). That unit almost doubled in size recently with the addition of 20 newly assigned persons, as reported in an SEC Press Release of May 3, 2022. There the Commission stated the Unit “will continue to tackle the omnipresent cyber-related threats in the nation’s [capital] markets.” Also, underscoring the ever-increasing role played by the SEC in overseeing the operations of broker/dealers and investment advisers, the OCIE was renamed the Division of Examinations (“Exams”) on Dec. 17, 2020, elevating an “Office” of the SEC to a “Division.”

Examinations of three broker/dealers by personnel from Exams led the CACU to investigate all three, resulting in the institution of Administrative and Cease-and Desist Proceedings against each of the respondents for violations of Regulation S-ID. In those proceedings, the Commission alleged that the Identity Theft Protection Program (“ITPP”), which each respondent was required to have, was deficient. Regulation S-ID, including its Appendix A, sets forth both the requirements for an ITPP and types of red flags the Program should consider, and in Supplement A to Appendix A, includes examples of red flags from each category of possible risks. An ITPP must be in writing and should contain the following:

  1. Reasonable policies and procedures to identify, detect and respond appropriately to relevant red flags of the types likely to arise considering the firm’s business and the scope of its brokerage and/or advisory activities; and those policies and procedures should specify the responsive steps to be taken; broad generalizations will not suffice. Those policies and procedures should also describe the firm’s practices with respect to theft identification, prevention, and response, and direct that the firm document the steps to be taken in each case.
  2.  Requirements for periodic updates of the Program, including updates reflecting the firm’s experience with both a) identity theft; and b) changes in the firm’s business. In addition, the updates should address changes in the types and mechanisms of cybersecurity risks the firm might plausibly encounter.
  3. Requirements for periodic review of the types of accounts offered and the risks associated with each type.
  4. Provisions directing at least annual reports to the firm’s board of directors, and/or senior management, addressing the program’s effectiveness, including identity theft-related incidents and management responses to them.
  5. Provisions for training of staff in identity theft and the responses required by the firm’s ITPP.
  6. Requirements for monitoring third party service providers for compliance with identity theft provisions that meet those of the firm’s program.

The ITPP of each of the three broker/dealers was, as noted, found deficient. The first, J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC (“MORGAN”), organized under Delaware law and headquartered in New York, New York, is a wholly owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (described by the Commission as “a global financial services firm” in its July 27, 2022, Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings [the “Morgan Order”]). Morgan is registered with the Commission as both a broker/dealer (since Dec. 13, 1985) and an investment adviser (since April 3, 1965). As recited in the Morgan Order, the SEC found Morgan offered and maintained customer accounts “primarily for personal, family, or household purposes that involve or are designed to permit multiple payments or transactions.” The order further notes that from Jan. 1, 2017, through Dec. 31, 2019, Morgan’s ITPP did not meet the requirements of Regulation S-ID because it “merely restated the general legal requirements” and did not specify how Morgan would identify a red flag or direct how to respond to it. The Morgan Order notes that although Morgan did take action to detect and respond to incidents of identity theft, the procedures followed were not in Morgan’s Program. Further, Morgan did not periodically update its program, even as both the types of accounts offered, and the extent of cybersecurity risks changed. The SEC also found Morgan did not adequately monitor its third-party service providers, and it failed to provide any identity theft-specific training to its staff. As a result, Morgan had violated Regulation S-ID. The order noted that Morgan “has undertaken substantial remedial acts, including auditing and revising … [its Program].” Nonetheless, Morgan was ordered to cease and desist from violating Regulation S-ID, was censured, and was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $1.2 million.

The second broker/dealer charged was UBS Financial Services Inc.(“UFS”), a Delaware corporation dually registered with the Commission as both a broker/dealer and an investment adviser since 1971. UFS, headquartered in Weehawken, New Jersey, is a subsidiary of UBS Group AG, a publicly traded major financial institution incorporated in Switzerland. In 2008, UBF adopted an ITPP (the “UBF Program”) pursuant to the 2003 amendments to the FCRA. The program applied both to UBF and to other affiliated entities and branch offices in the U.S. and Puerto Rico “which offered private and retail banking, mortgage, and private investment services that operated under UBS Group AG’s Wealth Management Americas’ line of business.” See my blog published on Aug. 22, 2022, “Only Sell What You Know: Swiss Bank Negligence is a Fraud on Clients,” for information about the origins and history of UBS Group AG.

The July 27, 2022, SEC Order instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings against UBF (the “UBF Order”) stated that UBF made no change to the UBF Program when, in 2013, it became subject to Regulation S-ID, or thereafter from Jan. 1, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2019, other than to revise the list of entities and branches it covered. The Commission found UBF failed to update the UBF Program even as the accounts it offered changed, and without considering if some accounts offered by affiliated entities and branches are not “covered accounts” within regulation S-ID. The UBF Program did not have reasonable policies and procedures to identify red flags, taking into consideration account types and attendant risks, and did not specify what responses were required. The SEC also found the program wanting for not providing for periodic updates, especially addressing changes in accounts and/or in cybersecurity risks. The annual reports to the board of directors “did not provide sufficient information” to assess the UBF Program’s effectiveness or the adequacy of UBF’s monitoring of third-party service providers; indeed, the UBF Order notes the “board minutes do not reflect any discussion of compliance with Regulation S-ID.” In addition, UBF “did not conduct any training of its staff specific” to the UBF Program, including how to detect and respond to red flags.  As a result, the Commission found UBF in violation of Regulation S-ID. Although the Commission again noted the “substantial remedial acts” undertaken by UBF, including retaining “an outside consulting firm to review its Program” and to recommend change, the SEC nonetheless ordered UBF to cease and desist from violating the Regulation, censured UBF, and ordered it to pay a civil penalty of $925,000.

The third member of this broker/dealer trio is TradeStation Securities, Inc. (“TSS”), a Florida corporation headquartered in Plantation, Florida, that, according to the July 27, 2022, SEC Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings (the “TSS Order”), “provides primarily commission-free, directed online brokerage services to retail and institutional customers.” TSS has been registered with the SEC as a broker/dealer since January 1996. Their ITPP, too, was found deficient. The ITPP implemented by TSS (the “TSS Program”) essentially ignored the reality of TSS’s business as an online operation. For instance, the TSS Program cited only the red flags offered as “non-comprehensive examples in Supplement A to Appendix A” and not any “relevant to its business and the nature and scope of its brokerage activities.” Hence, the TSS Program cited the need to confirm the physical appearance of customers to make certain it was consistent with photographs or physical descriptions in the file. But an online broker/dealer would have scant opportunity to see a customer or a new customer in person, even when opening an account. Nor did TSS check the Supplement A red flag examples cited in the TSS Program when opening new customer accounts. The TSS Program directed only that “additional due diligence” should be performed if a red flag were identified, rather than directing specific responsive steps to be taken, such as not opening an account in a questionable situation. There were no requirements for periodic updates of the TSS Program. Indeed, “there were no material changes to the Program” after May 20, 2013, “despite significant changes in external cybersecurity risks related to identity theft.” At this point in the TSS Order, the Commission cited a finding in the Federal Register that “[a]dvancements in technology … have led to increasing threats to the integrity … of personal information.” The SEC found that TSS did not provide reports about the TSS Program and compliance with Regulation S-ID either to the TSS board or to a designated member of senior management, and that TSS had no adequate policies and procedures in place to monitor third-party service providers for compliance with detecting and preventing identity theft. The order is silent on the extent of TSS’s training of staff to deal with identity threats, but considering the other shortcomings, presumably such training was at best haphazard. The Commission found that TSS violated Regulation S-ID. Although the TSS Order noted (as with the other Proceedings) the “substantial remedial acts” undertaken by TSS, including retaining “an outside consulting firm” to aid compliance, the Commission nonetheless ordered TSS to cease-and-desist from violating the Regulation, censured TSS, and ordered it to pay a civil penalty of $425,000.

These three enforcement actions on the same day, especially ones involving two of the world’s leading financial institutions, signal a new level of attention by the Commission to cybersecurity risks to customers of broker/dealers and investment advisers, with a focus on the risks inherent in identity theft. As one leading law firm writing about these three actions advised, “[f]irms should review their ITPPs placing particular emphasis on identifying red flags tailored to their business and on conducting regular compliance reviews to update those red flags and related policies and procedures to reflect changes in business practices and risk.” That sound advice should be followed NOW, before the CACU comes calling.

For more Financial, Securities, and Banking Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

Following the Recent Regulatory Trends, NLRB General Counsel Seeks to Limit Employers’ Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace

On October 31, 2022, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) released Memorandum GC 23-02 urging the Board to interpret existing Board law to adopt a new legal framework to find electronic monitoring and automated or algorithmic management practices illegal if such monitoring or management practices interfere with protected activities under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”).  The Board’s General Counsel stated in the Memorandum that “[c]lose, constant surveillance and management through electronic means threaten employees’ basic ability to exercise their rights,” and urged the Board to find that an employer violates the Act where the employer’s electronic monitoring and management practices, when viewed as a whole, would tend to “interfere with or prevent a reasonable employee from engaging in activity protected by the Act.”  Given that position, it appears that the General Counsel believes that nearly all electronic monitoring and automated or algorithmic management practices violate the Act.

Under the General Counsel’s proposed framework, an employer can avoid a violation of the Act if it can demonstrate that its business needs require the electronic monitoring and management practices and the practices “outweigh” employees’ Section 7 rights.  Not only must the employer be able to make this showing, it must also demonstrate that it provided the employees advance notice of the technology used, the reason for its use, and how it uses the information obtained.  An employer is relieved of this obligation, according to the General Counsel, only if it can show “special circumstances” justifying “covert use” of the technology.

In GC 23-02, the General Counsel signaled to NLRB Regions that they should scrutinize a broad range of “automated management” and “algorithmic management” technologies, defined as “a diverse set of technological tools and techniques to remotely manage workforces, relying on data collection and surveillance of workers to enable automated or semi-automated decision-making.”  Technologies subject to this scrutiny include those used during working time, such as wearable devices, security cameras, and radio-frequency identification badges that record workers’ conversations and track the movements of employees, GPS tracking devices and cameras that keep track of the productivity and location of employees who are out on the road, and computer software that takes screenshots, webcam photos, or audio recordings.  Also subject to scrutiny are technologies employers may use to track employees while they are off duty, such as employer-issued phones and wearable devices, and applications installed on employees’ personal devices.  Finally, the General Counsel noted that an employer that uses such technologies to hire employees, such as online cognitive assessments and reviews of social media, “pry into job applicants’ private lives.”  Thus, these pre-hire practices may also violate of the Act.  Technologies such as resume readers and other automated selection tools used during hiring and promotion may also be subject to GC 23-02.

GC 23-02 follows the wave of recent federal guidance from the White House, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and local laws that attempt to define, regulate, and monitor the use of artificial intelligence in decision-making capacities.  Like these regulations and guidance, GC 23-02 raises more questions than it answers.  For example, GC 23-02 does not identify the standards for determining whether business needs “outweigh” employees’ Section 7 rights, or what constitutes “special circumstances” that an employer must show to avoid scrutiny under the Act.

While GC 23-02 sets forth the General Counsel’s proposal and thus is not legally binding, it does signal that there will likely be disputes in the future over artificial intelligence in the employment context.

Article By Steven M. Swirsky, Adam S. Forman, Nathaniel M. Glasser, Neresa A. De Biasi, and Ridhi D. Madia of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more labor law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Is Crypto Collapsing?

November 11, 2022, brought news of yet another massive crypto bankruptcy filing. One of the largest crypto exchanges, FTX, filed a petition for bankruptcy protection in Delaware. FTX, Alameda, and other affiliates estimated in their filings that they have more than 100,000 creditors. With their estimated range of between $10 and $50 billion worth of assets and liabilities, this could well be the largest crypto-related bankruptcy ever filed.

This follows a slew of other big names in crypto which have filed bankruptcy petitions recently, including lender Three Arrows Capital (3AC) and the Celsius crypto exchange. Others have sought similar protections overseas, such as Zipmex’s proceeding in Singapore.

Why are these companies filing bankruptcy? The reasons vary.

  • Business models built on unsustainable growth rates in cryptocurrency prices
  • Collapse in cryptocurrency prices, leading to “runs on the bank”
  • Financial irregularities

Is your crypto safe? That depends on what it is and where you park it. Some newer tokens and wallet software may not have been extensively tested, and so may have weak points that an attacker might exploit. Even “safe” currencies like Bitcoin can be hacked if stored in a hot wallet. Of particular interest, customers of a bankruptcy exchange may find it difficult to recover their crypto deposits because their investments may be treated as mere unsecured claims against the exchange, drastically reducing the odds of recovery.

Filings by crypto-based entities come with a host of thorny issues. The most obvious is whether a crypto exchange’s bankruptcy estate owns the tokens it holds for others. But there are many others, including privacy concerns with respect to what previously were anonymous transactions and questions about the propriety of large financial withdrawals by high-ranking individuals in the days surrounding the filing of bankruptcy petitions.

For More FinTech Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC

Attorney Mindfulness When Addressing Emails and Texts: ABA Formal Opinion Provides Ethical Guidance to Lawyers on Electronic Communications

In their roles as advisors, advocates, counselors, negotiators, and client representatives, lawyers communicate extensively though electronic means, particularly email and increasingly text messages. However, the fact that use of these electronic communication tools is commonplace in legal practice doesn’t mean that attorneys shouldn’t exercise caution when crafting their communications. The American Bar Association (“ABA”) Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility published a formal opinion this month that advises lawyers to refrain generally from including their clients on emails and texts sent to opposing counsel.

ABA Formal Opinion 503 focuses on ABA Model Rule 4.2, often referred to as the “no-contact” rule. Under this model rule, a lawyer who is representing a client may not communicate about the subject of the representation with a represented person absent the consent of that person’s lawyer unless the law or court order authorizes such as communication. Most states’ codes of professional legal ethics draw heavily upon the ABA Model Rules, so many states have similar “no-contact” rules for lawyers.

The new formal opinion states that lawyers would not be deemed to violate ABA Model Rule 4.2 if they send a “reply all” response to a group email or text sent by an opposing counsel, even if that communication includes the opposing counsel’s client. The opinion states that, “[a]bsent special circumstances, lawyers who copy their clients on emails or other forms of electronic communication to counsel representing another person in the matter impliedly consent to a ‘reply all’ response from the receiving counsel,” the opinion said. “Accordingly, the reply all communication would not violate Model Rule 4.2.”

As a practical matter, Formal Opinion 503 provides a number of options to lawyers who wish to avoid creating an implied presumption of consent to such “reply all” communications from opposing counsel to their clients. These options include:

  • forwarding the electronic communication separately to the client without including opposing counsel as an addressee,
  • informing receiving counsel expressly and in advance that including the client on the electronic communication does not constitute a consent to a “reply all” response, or
  • sending the communication through other means (such as a mailed hard copy letter) where different norms are in place regarding responding to all addressees.

The full text of ABA Formal Opinion 503 is available here.

Article By Electronic Discovery at K&L Gates

For more law office management legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright 2022 K & L Gates

Five Data Quality Nightmares That Haunt Marketers and How Avoid Them

In this spooky season of vampires, witches and scary clowns, we’d like to add one more to the mix – data quality nightmares – which can be more frightful than a marathon of Freddy Kreuger movies to some of us.

We need data about our clients and prospects in order to create strategic programs that can lead to new business and increased visibility, but maintaining that data on an ongoing basis can quickly turn into a nightmare without the right resources.

Having good quality data is important for success in so many areas of your organization, including:

  • Communicating effectively with core constituencies
  • Successfully planning and executing events
  • Segmenting your target markets, clients or customers
  • Providing superior customer service
  • Understanding the needs of clients or customers
  • Effectively developing new business
  • Improving delivery and reducing costs of postal mailings

The reality is that your data will never be perfect, but there are ways you can address and improve it. The longer you wait to improve your data management, the scarier it will become. Here are some of the most common data quality nightmares we see and how to avoid them:

Data Quality Nightmare 1: Duplicate data

Is your CRM a graveyard for thousands of duplicate company and individual contacts? Data comes from all directions, so it’s important to ensure that data isn’t being duplicated. Dupes make it difficult to coordinate efforts and activities. Duplicate data occurs when customer information appears more than once in the database, or multiple variations of the same individual appear.

Secondly, duplicate data can damage your brand image. It is unlikely that a contact who receives the same information twice will be happy about it. This is an easy way to frustrate customers and prospects and can make your business appear disorganized.

Data Quality Nightmare 2: Missing or incomplete data

Are your contact details ‘ghosting you’? Without good data you can’t target or segment, and your communications and invitations won’t reach the right audiences.

Similar to inaccurate data, incomplete data can also have a negative impact on your business performance.

One way that organizations can help control this data quality nightmare, is by making certain form fields a required entry. That way, data entries will be more consistent and complete.

Data Quality Nightmare 3: Incorrect or inconsistent data

Does incorrect or inconsistent data give you nightmares? Bad CRM data leads to missed opportunities for new customers, and it could create issues for your sales cycle. There is almost no point in engaging with contacts in your database if the information is incorrect.

There are multiple ways to encourage good data habits, depending on your system and method of contact entry. If your firm relies on manual data entry, implement a firmwide Data Standards Guide to inform users how data should be entered (e.g., does your firm spell out or abbreviate job titles?). It can also be helpful to use system validation rules wherever possible to require certain information in new records such as last name, city and email address to ensure your contacts are relevant.

Data Quality Nightmare 4: Too much data

Are you in the ‘zombie zone’ trying blindly to figure out what to do with too much data and/or disparate data from disconnected systems?

Having too much data can be overwhelming – and unnecessary. It’s important to set parameters on what information you truly need about your clients and prospects, and then maintain only that information going forward. This will streamline the process and make everyone’s jobs easier by avoiding data quality nightmares.

Data Quality Nightmare 5: Lack of data quality resources

Does your team run screaming from data quality projects leaving you with a data disaster?

To encourage ongoing system adoption and utilization, data quality and maintenance must be top priorities. Resources must be dedicated – including time, money and people. Processes and procedures need to be put in place to maintain ongoing quality. Most importantly, training and communication are essential to ensure that end users don’t create unnecessary duplicates or introduce more bad data into the system.

Data Quality Doesn’t Have to Be Scary

While it’s easy to become scared by nightmare data, it’s important to put it in perspective. Focus on discreet data and projects that yield real ROI such as:

  • Start with your most relevant records like current clients. Begin cleaning your top 100 to 500 along with associated key contacts.
  • Review frequently used lists to ensure your communications and invitations are reaching the right recipients.
  • Vet bounced emails after each campaign, or better yet, regularly run lists through an automated data process to identify bad emails before a campaign to ensure that information actually reaches your targets in a timely manner.
  • Tackle time-sensitive one-off projects. For instance, an upcoming event often provides a good opportunity to get users engaged in cleanup efforts, particularly if the event is important to them.

It’s also important to remember that because data degrades so rapidly, data cleaning can’t be a one-time initiative. Once your team begins regularly maintaining your data, the cleanup will get easier over time. And remember, because data cleaning never really ends, the good news is that this means you have forever to get better at it.

Article By Christina R. Fritsch JD of CLIENTSFirst Consulting

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2022 CLIENTSFirst Consulting

Biden Administration Expands Public-Private Cybersecurity Partnership to Chemical Sector

On October 26, 2022, the Biden Administration announced that it is expanding the Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Cybersecurity Initiative to the chemical sector. The White House’s fact sheet states that the majority of chemical companies are privately owned, so a collaborative approach is needed between the private sector and government. According to the fact sheet, “[t]he nation’s leading chemical companies and the government’s lead agency for the chemical sector — the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) — have agreed on a plan to promote a higher standard of cybersecurity across the sector, including capabilities that enable visibility and threat detection for industrial control systems.”

The fact sheet states that the Chemical Action Plan will serve as a roadmap to guide the sector’s assessment of their current cybersecurity practices over the next 100 days, building on the lessons learned and best practices of the previously launched action plans for the electric, pipeline, and water sectors to meet the needs for this sector. The Chemical Action Plan will:

  • Focus on high-risk chemical facilities that present significant chemical release hazards with the ultimate goal of supporting enhanced ICS cybersecurity across the entire chemical sector;
  • Drive information sharing and analytical coordination between the federal government and the chemical sector;
  • Foster collaboration with the sector owners and operators to facilitate and encourage the deployment of appropriate technologies based on each chemical facility’s own risk assessment and cybersecurity posture. The federal government will not select, endorse, or recommend any specific technology or provider; and
  • Support the continuity of chemical production critical to the national and economic security of the United States. The chemical sector produces and manufactures chemicals that are used directly or as building blocks in the everyday lives of Americans, from fertilizers and disinfectants to personal care products and energy sources, among others.

The ICS Cybersecurity Initiative emphasizes that cybersecurity continues to be a top priority for the Administration.

For more Cybersecurity Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

Episode 5: What’s New In Law Firm Thought Leadership? with Alistair Bone, Vice President for Passle

Welcome to Season 2, Episode 5 of Legal News Reach! National Law Review Web Content Specialist Shelby Garrett sits down with Alistair Bone, Vice President with Passle,  to catch up on the latest in law firm thought leadership trends. What are four strategies for content marketing success? How can current events play a role in brand development? And why is thought leadership more important—and competitive—than ever?

We’ve included a transcript of the conversation below, transcribed by artificial intelligence. The transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and readability.

Shelby Garrett

Thank you for tuning in to the Legal News Reach podcast. My name is Shelby Garrett, Web Publication Specialist with the National Law Review, and in this episode I’ll be speaking to Alistair Bone, Vice President for Passle. Would you mind sharing a bit about your background in legal and what you do at Passle?

Alistair Bone

Thank you very much for having me on, firstly, it’s nice to be kind of the interviewee as opposed to the interviewer. Typically, as you might have come across, there’s the CMO Series podcast at Passle and I’ve been heavily involved with that, which is always enjoyable, so nice to be here. A little bit of background for me is that I was previously a professional sportsman playing rugby, I was very fortunate to have done that. But sadly, that all came to an end about three years ago. I then went into headhunting in the world of law, which kind of sparked the initial interest in law firms and professional services. And I learned a huge amount there. But then my sort of interest was really sparked in technology and how that can kind of really enable law firms to further what they’re doing. And that’s where Passle came along. For me, I love relationships, I love meeting people, I am very much a people person, and this kind of seemed to bring all those different worlds together for me. So yeah, that’s kind of how I ended up Passle, and I’m absolutely loving what I’m doing here.

Shelby Garrett

Yeah, I’m really excited to speak with you today. Passle sounds like an amazing tool for professionals, content creation can be an extremely overwhelming process and I think that Passle really removes those roadblocks and kind of simplifies the whole process so that professionals can easily share their expertise

Alistair Bone

Bang on, I mean Passle is a software that has been used by professional services. As you mentioned, we work with Magic Circle firms, Am Law 100, the Big Four accountancies, and fundamentally it’s a platform that makes that critical challenge of demonstrating the firm’s expertise, getting it out to the market nice and quickly and effectively and fundamentally enjoyably.

Shelby Garrett

Amazing, let’s get into a little bit of discussion about thought leadership. Could you give us a nice little definition and why it’s currently a priority for law firms?

Alistair Bone

Yeah, of course, it’s a really nice place to start and hopefully I can give a little bit of an overview. When you come to sort of thought leadership, you know, in professional services, being able to demonstrate your firm’s knowledge and value to the market is really key. Thought leadership definitely sits at the heart of all successful professional service marketing. Really, when you start thinking about it, nearly every growth initiative, business development target, or marketing activity centers around how well that firm can demonstrate the knowledge of its experts. Fundamentally, they want to put out that knowledge to the market. Now, when you start to consider that in terms of what’s happening, we’re really seeing that shift of firms becoming far more global, and certainly more digital. So therefore they’re really starting to prioritize that expertise online and really invest into the thought leadership infrastructure. That said, it’s not happening with everybody. But of the general sort of trends, what we’re really seeing is that the places that have really proved progressive, CMOs are doing very well with it, but also firms are trying to really sort of position themselves in a space or a city and sort of elevate what they’re doing. So hopefully, that’s a nice little bit of an overview of sort of thought leadership and what we’re seeing in the world right now.

Shelby Garrett

When firms start to look into thought leadership, what are ways for them to measure their success, in really cultivating that?

Alistair Bone

So when it comes to how they’re able to sort of really prioritize their thought leadership and what they’re doing, there’s definitely a few reasons sort of behind that in terms of how they can kind of start to prioritize it, and why they might be prioritizing it. For some firms, it’s sort of central to their ethos in their output of what they’re trying to achieve. So if you take, for instance, Reed Smith, they are a global player, they see themselves as a global player in the market, and they want to be first to the market in terms of commenting on what’s happening now, what are those new initiatives, what’s changing in the marketplace. So that’s one way that people are doing it. Again mentioned sort of beforehand, but it can be just that people are wanting to sort of position themselves in a space where they see a really big opportunity. As all law firms know, their clients are really hungry to understand what’s happening in their various markets. And something that at the moment, we’re really seeing that sort of trend of why people are prioritizing it is areas such as your ESG, or your E-Sports are really nice places that people can focus their thought leadership and elevate the sort of teams around that.

A different example is actually, you know, we’ve just launched with Goulston & Storrs, who are a Boston based firm, they’re very established there, but they really want to be recognized in the New York market. And so again, for them thought leadership’s going to be key there to kind of really elevate themselves. So hopefully that’s kind of a nice little bit of a wrap up. I think the other thing that we really noticed with people prioritizing their thought leadership is, we on an annual basis do something called the Digital Performance Index. Now we take a look at a whole host of online activity from law firms, you know, right through from their website, how they’re performing on LinkedIn, etc. And naturally being a thought leadership expert, so to speak, we focus in on that and what we see there is that a lot of firms really sit in sort of amongst their competitors in an area that we would really say is fierce competition. The average attorney in the US and the UK creates one piece of thought leadership a year. So again, firms who want to get themselves out of that fierce competition to be seen as a category leader as kind of mentioned previously, they’re the ones that that are sort of starting to prioritize thought leadership.

Shelby Garrett

Sounds like the measure of success might vary depending on what the goals of the firm are. But is there anything that you’ve noticed that separates successful thought leadership programs from ones that are struggling?

Alistair Bone

Yeah, certainly, I think when you start to measure in what actually makes a successful thought leadership program, as said before, like, those are the reasons that maybe are what made people want to do it. But what’s going to make it successful? I think, before maybe answering that, it’s worth talking about what is a thought leadership program, because it might differ for people. But fundamentally, you know, it’s that sort of concerted effort by firms to demonstrate their expertise to the market. So we’re really fortunate that we get to work on a global scale with the likes of Freshfields, Deloitte, and they’re all having really huge success. On the flip side, we also see what doesn’t work. But fundamentally, success comes down to what we call the four pillars. Within those four pillars, there is the author, there is governance, there’s something that we call “Create Once and Publish Everywhere,” and then your feedback. So that’s a little bit of maybe an introduction in sort of that thought leadership and what makes it successful.

When it comes to considering the author, if we take the first pillar, you really want to ensure that your thought leadership is author-centric when you’re making that publication. So how can you empower them and motivate your authors, your lawyers, your consultants to create that content in a really easy sort of well understood way? The second pillar would be governance. And so it’s really important to be able to make sure that there’s no friction in the process of actually creating the content. So you know, how do you get those nice, quick, efficient approval processes for the content you’re putting out there, you know, making it a matter of hours, as opposed to days? Because you want to be timely, you want to be putting it out there in a really nice format that’s responding to what’s happening in the market. When we come on to “Create Once and Publish Everywhere,” there’s a really nice term we like to refer to, “Cope.” So it’s about actually, you know, how are you guaranteeing the reach of that content, you know, you’ve created this great piece of thought leadership, where’s it going from there? So of course, you know, the lawyers have really strong networks on LinkedIn, it’s a really nice place to push that out. But equally there’s all the sort of online publications. There’s obviously yourself, the National Law Review, great place, you know, want that content on there. But also, if I hope you don’t mind me mentioning, there’s obviously JD Supra, Mondaq, Lexology—again, nice places that you want your content on. So again, how can you really push that out to the market? And then finally, there’s feedback. And in some ways, once you’ve done all of the above, this is actually the most critical part because there’s no point in creating thought leadership and that content and pushing it out there if people don’t know the benefit of what they’ve done. And actually, it’s got to be in a nice layered way. Because when you think about it, there’s multiple stakeholders who want to understand the feedback. So if we take the authors, you know, that’s very personal, they want their clients, they want their prospects, they want to know who’s been engaging with it. If you take it from the firm’s perspective, the management know, they’re probably looking at that bottom line, you know, who’s bringing in the money for them? So are they getting engagement from those key people? And the third and final sort of layer is actually the marketing business development. So again, when you have a look at all of that feedback put together, that starts to demonstrate the success of all of that time that you’re investing into it. So yeah, hopefully, that’s a nice way to understand it. But fundamentally, success comes with aligning themselves to those four pillars and making sure you’re doing each in the best way possible. And that’s what gets, you know, a real virtuous circle of content creation going.

Shelby Garrett

Amazing, that was really great context and a really full theory of success. For firms that might be looking to really transform their thought leadership programs, is there a good place to start? We talked about the four pillars. Is there one first step that they can really use to jumpstart this?

Alistair Bone

I think there’s a few different places that they can start with, but in some ways, it’s actually quite simple. I’ve mentioned those four pillars there, and actually it’s about assessing those four pillars. Are you engaging your authors? You know, is it very easy for them, if you remove those barriers to entry to make sure that they can create their content? Again, when it comes to governance, you know, have you addressed those workflows? Is it again, a simple process for them to be able to actually create that content? And then get that out there? Once it’s done, where are you putting it out? And finally that feedback, are you actually providing feedback to people? I think by taking that step back and taking a look at the sort of overall process of your thought leadership program, and looking at those four pillars, that really allows you to then hone in on actually, “Okay, we’re not enabling and empowering our authors to create content. That’s why it’s not actually happening. So therefore, we need to do that and then we can start to go from there.” It may be that you’re doing all of this, but there’s no feedback. You know, maybe you give something small once a year. I know that if I was doing something I’m putting time and effort into and I got no feedback and didn’t really know the value that I was adding to people, then I probably wouldn’t want to continue doing it. So again, it’s just a nice way to kind of really address it. So I think that’s a really nice place for people to start when it wants to come to, you know, transforming their thought leadership program, or even beginning it.

Shelby Garrett

Yeah, that’s a really great point. I feel like there’s a lot of excitement when starting something new, but you have to take that kind of honest and realistic assessment of what you currently have going on to develop that full game plan. Thank you. That was amazing.

We talked about measurements of success, but are there additional tools and resources that are available for firms that are looking forward to making these changes?

Alistair Bone

I mean, if you look at it from our perspective, on the Passle website, I mentioned it at the top, but the CMO Series podcast is a really nice place for anybody at any level in smart marketing and business development to listen to what’s happening in the market be it from, you know, what it’s like to be a new CMO, be it data, developing your team. So that’s a really nice resource hub. If you think about thought leadership, we have various resources in terms of one-pagers that you can come on, and you can learn a little bit more around what’s happening. Similarly, feel free to reach out, you know, we’re always here to have conversations and discuss what we’re doing here at Passle and how we’re helping a number of different firms with their thought leadership programs and forming that infrastructure for them as they move forward.

Shelby Garrett

Absolutely. Yeah, your website is a great resource, I listened to a couple of those podcasts and you guys have quite the range of guests as well, that are very happy to share their expertise, which is great.

Alistair Bone

Yeah, we’re really fortunate from that perspective. And it’s been a really nice thing to do. I say, normally, I’m sat interviewing people, but it allows myself and my colleagues to ultimately make some great friends throughout the legal world. So it’s been a real success.

Shelby Garrett

Yeah, with those connections you’ve definitely built a lot of knowledge that’s accessible for people in that podcast as well, which is wonderful.

Moving away from the firm focus, but kind of looking at more of a macro lens, what are some of the current trends that are happening in law firm thought leadership programs?

Alistair Bone

I think, you know, if we take it back to the start, the biggest trends that we’re noticing is just people, one focusing on key areas. So, you know, be it new practice areas, such as their ESG, or their E-sports, that’s where people are certainly starting to focus in on. I think the other place is that people are looking at it as career development, which is a really nice place to, you know, help elevate what attorneys and lawyers are doing, as they kind of come through that natural path where you become associate, senior associate, you’re not necessarily doing a lot of business development until you get to partner. So again, it’s a nice chance for you to start to be seen in the network and be seen as those experts. The other place that I think people are starting to focus in on is realizing that there’s always a place for your big white papers. They’re fantastic. There’s so much time, effort, money goes into them. They provide a huge amount of knowledge, but what the market wants on the whole, and certainly what us as individuals out there want in this world now is that nice, short, digestible, timely content. So actually, you don’t want to be writing much more than maybe sort of 200, 500 words. So again, that’s a nice shift that we’re starting to see that people understand that value from that perspective.

Shelby Garrett

 Yeah, absolutely. I have a background in public libraries and having this information available online with these different topics is just so valuable for everybody sharing that information, and your expertise.

Alistair Bone

It’s that chance to kind of dip into different areas of people’s expertise. You know, something’s changed and, you know, the interest rates have moved here in the UK, how’s that affecting your mortgage rate? And what’s the law behind that? Or, you know, unfortunately, there was the big storm, you know, Hurricane Ian down in Florida recently, you know, maybe an employment lawyer might want to put out some recent content or something around, “What are your employment rights around working from home?” or whatever it might be. So it’s a really nice way to kind of start engaging with people, you know, don’t have to look at it in the lens of simply being the law and client alerts and that sort of thing. So as you said, you can dip into these different things and learn something.

Shelby Garrett

Yeah, absolutely. The new iOS update for Apple with the ability to delete text messages and e-Discovery that’s, like, so intriguing to me. And yeah, just as like a public person. I think that’s like, extremely interesting.

When we’re looking at all of these big changes, like you’ve mentioned the hurricane, have you seen law firms kind of shift their content marketing approaches, in light of that?

Alistair Bone

I think on the whole, we are seeing people just start to engage in maybe a slightly different way. I mean, I’ve been fortunate enough on some of those podcasts to have great conversations with people in the industry for a long time and they kind of talked about what they’ve seen the marketing functions of law firms do and the real shift. But I think now people are starting to realize that ultimately it really is about elevating your attorneys and what you’re doing and therefore how can you push out, ultimately their knowledge? I think the other thing to consider in the world we’re all now living in is that a lot more people will be working from home, you know people, or law firm should I say spend a huge amount of money on the infrastructure of offices, office spaces, people aren’t necessarily coming into it, you’re not necessarily having your clients come into it so that online presence is becoming ever more important. So again, what you’re putting out there on the website, what your attorneys are able to do, what your consultants are able to do becomes that bit more important. So yeah, there’s definitely I think that more of a shift online to being able to elevate what people are doing.

Shelby Garrett

Yeah, that kind of ties into with the smaller or the shorter pieces that are being created, you could kind of shift your topics more quickly. Looks like we are nearly coming to a close. But I do want to pull this all together and talk about where Passle exactly fits in and helping these law firms create and share their thought leadership. I know you kind of walked us through the tool that you guys have and your Chrome plugin previously. But if you could explain that a little bit more for our listeners?

Alistair Bone

Sure, well, I’ll give a very brief overview of how Passle works for people who don’t know. Passle is a piece of software that quite simply goes onto the laptop. And as they removed all the barriers of entry for the attorneys, the consultants, your experts to create the content. So it can be used in a host of different ways. Not only you can write content but you can do your podcasts, you can do your videos, you can host PDFs, you can embed different content, there’s so much that you’re able to do with it. And once you’ve got over the fundamental hurdle of people being able to create the content, you can then do a host of different things then in terms of starting to form that infrastructure on the website. So be that plugging into the attorneys’ profiles or consultants’ profiles, plugging it into the practice areas. Yeah, kind of the world’s your oyster, once you get up and running with it, which is, which is really cool. If you want to launch with Passle, the way that we always do it, because we know this is tried, tested, and works incredibly well is we do a Proof of Value that we run over the course of two months. It’s all about that behavioral change, you know, taking a group of 20, 25, attorneys, consultants, experts within your firm, and getting that shift of going from, “I don’t understand thought leadership, I don’t know how to create content, I don’t necessarily want to, I haven’t done it before,” to overnight, shifting them into actually understanding the benefits that come from thought leadership and what they can do with it. So that’s kind of the launch process. I don’t want to bore people too much with it. But hopefully, that’s a bit of an overview of Passle and where it kind of plugs in. But it’s a very exciting time for us. And we’re very fortunate to be working with some of the world’s global firms and some real leading players there.

Shelby Garrett

Yeah, absolutely. I, when you were talking about the four pillars, I certainly could immediately connect it to what you were showing us earlier through your demonstration.

Alistair Bone

I think that’s the thing with Passle is that once you have the opportunity to see it, everything clicks, and you understand the value that it’s going to bring and how easy it is because it’s not just on the attorney side. If you take the marketing, the BD, the communications team, we obviously elevate everything that they’re doing and make it very easy for them. But also because it’s all focused in on one sort of screen. You know, when you have that Passle posts, that completes the content you’ve created approved, the marketing, the BD teams get a notification, it’s all in one place, they can top and tail it, do what they want to before it’s going live on to the website. So you remove that arduous process of back and forth again, which is a really nice place to be. So it’s not just about the attorneys. It’s actually about the marketing, the BD, comms teams and elevating everything they’re doing as well.

Shelby Garrett

It certainly is daunting for lawyers to create their own content. And it’s a large task and Passle makes it a bit of a smoother process I think, at least from what I’ve seen.

Alistair Bone

Everybody has the impostor syndrome, whatever you do. Once you get over that hurdle, you know, it’s pretty smooth sailing.

Shelby Garrett

Yeah, absolutely. How has Passle’s technology been able to help firms succeed over the years? I know we’ve covered it throughout. But if you could really like, bring that all together in a nice little package for us?

Alistair Bone

Yeah, sure. I think what might be the best thing to do, and I thought it might be able to answer it earlier but didn’t have the chance to was, you know, what actually makes a successful thought leadership program? So maybe if I can demonstrate some of the successes people have had, that kind of demonstrates what’s happened over the years. I think success can be defined in multiple ways for different people in terms of what your ultimate outcome is from a thought leadership program. But what we’ve seen is it really differs over time. So in the initial instance, you know it’s that overnight change the behavior change in in the attorneys, you know, you go from individuals never having created content to writing and understanding value. We launched with a law firm here in London called Forsters. One of my fantastic stories I absolutely love from it was one of their senior partners who didn’t like technology, had never used it, didn’t want to engage with it was part of our launch, the Proof of Value. Not only did he write four pieces of content, which again was a huge change, he started using LinkedIn. And even then he got himself an Instagram account, because he understood the value of technology all of a sudden, obviously slightly different to your work stuff. But again, a really nice story of kind of people seeing that change. You then kind of start to look at what’s happening over the next couple of months. And as you get deeper into that sort of thought leadership program, and more success starts to come in terms of the impact on people’s diaries. You know, they’re starting to have conversations with clients, they’re starting to meet prospects, you know, they get engaged with all of the right people. Additionally, and I sort of want to touch on it, as well is there’s that career development I mentioned earlier when you were sort of saying some of the trends, but there’s a real understanding for sort of the associates,  senior associates of how they can help develop their career. So again, a really nice example there was there’s a lawyer, a senior associate called JJ Shaw at a firm called Lewis Silkin in the sports team there and he was sharing with us that actually, you know, from creating content, putting it out there to his network, he started to have people come back to him asking him to post panels to sit on different talks, which is amazing, because all of a sudden, he’s being seen as that go-to expert, and people are actually engaging with what he’s doing. So again, a really nice development tool. And then I just think longer term, it’s fundamentally about winning business. And once you start winning the business, everything you’re doing with that big thought leadership program makes sense. So again, we’ve got a lot of anecdotal examples. One that I know I can share with the public was from Alvarez & Marsal, one of the big US consultancies, and we were fortunate enough to sit down with Linda Orton, who’s the former CMO there. And she shared with us that Mike Carter, who was again, a former Senior Director there had done this post around anti-money laundering, he put it onto LinkedIn, she’d actually invested a little bit of spending into that to sort of elevate what was happening, you know, something like 50 quid, not a huge amount of money. That then led to a conversation, which then led to business and over the past couple of years, that’s actually generated 12 million in revenue. So all of a sudden, admittedly, there’s a whole host of work that went into that. But it’s that understanding that by being seen as those go-to experts elevating what you’re doing, you know, the business starts to come. So hopefully, you know, I know, I’ve broken it down there, but that gives an idea of how actually, we’ve helped firms over the years, and particularly now, just really forming that thought leadership infrastructure for people.

Shelby Garrett

Yeah, amazing. I can certainly see the building the confidence aspect of the technology that you have making it simplified, but also seeing those results really would build your confidence in creation.

Alistair Bone

And it spans throughout firms, because someone else sees that and they want to get involved and do something around it. So it’s really nice.

Shelby Garrett

Yeah, it’s wonderful. Before we wrap up today, are there any final thoughts that you would like to share with us?

Alistair Bone

There’s probably one or two, I just want to keep it really succinct. I think just the main thing is that thought leadership really is for everybody, and is something that everyone should be considering at the moment, I think, whether it’s that you’re really wanting to stand out in a specific field or elevate some of the great work that you’re already doing, you know, whether that is the marketing or BD teams or for the attorneys, there’s so much that you can invest into it. And you know, that online presence has never been more important. So I think those two things are probably the key takeaways for me that hopefully it resonates with people as they listen to this. And you know, if there’s anything that you want to do in terms of understanding more than please feel free to obviously reach out to me via email or on LinkedIn or equally you can visit home.passle.net. There are plenty of places that you can get some information, but hopefully this has been some worthwhile information for people to listen to.

Shelby Garrett

We can’t thank you enough for joining us today and sharing your thoughts. Thank you to our listeners as well for tuning in. We will see you all next time.

Conclusion

Thank you for listening to the National Law Review’s Legal News Reach podcast. Be sure to follow us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts for more episodes. For the latest legal news, or if you’re interested in publishing and advertising with us, visit www.natlawreview.com. We’ll be back soon with our next episode.

For more Legal Marketing News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC

Buying, Selling, and Investing in Telehealth Companies: Navigating Structural and Compliance Issues

A multi-part series highlighting the unique health regulatory aspects of Telemedicine mergers and acquisitions, and financing transactions

Investors in the telehealth space and buyers and sellers of telehealth companies need to account for a set of health regulatory considerations that are unique to deals in this sector. As all parties to potential telehealth transactions analyze their long term role in the telehealth marketplace, two of the central issues to any transaction are compliance and structure – both in terms of structuring the telehealth transaction itself and due diligence issues that arise related to a target’s structure.

The COVID-19 pandemic, combined with strained health care staffing and provider availability, have accelerated the growth of the telehealth, and start-ups and traditional health systems alike are competing for access to patient populations in the telehealth space. However, as we adjust to life with COVID-19 as the norm, the expiration of the federal Public Health Emergency (PHE) looms, and the national economy contracts, we expect that the remainder of 2022 and into 2023 will see consolidation as the telehealth market begins to saturate and the long-term viability of certain platforms are tested. Telehealth companies, health systems, pharma companies and investors are all in potential positions to take advantage of this consolidation in a ripening M&A sector (while startups in the telehealth space continue to seek venture and institutional capital).

This is the first post in a series highlighting the unique health regulatory aspects of telehealth transactions. Future installments of this series are expected to cover licensure and regulatory approvals, compliance / clinical delivery models, and future market developments.

Telehealth Transaction Structure Considerations

The structure of any given telehealth transaction will largely depend on the business of the telehealth organization at play, but also will depend on the acquirer / investor. Regardless of whether a party is buying, selling or investing in a telehealth company, structuring the transaction appropriately will be important for all parties involved. While a standard stock purchase, asset purchase or merger may make sense for many of these transactions, we have also seen a proliferation of, affiliation arrangements, joint ventures (JV), alliances and partnerships.  These varieties of affiliation transactions can be a good choice for health systems that are not necessarily looking to manage or develop an existing platform, but instead are looking to leverage their patient populations and resources to partner with an existing technology platform. An affiliation or JV is more popular for telehealth companies operating purely as a technology platform (with no core business involving clinical services being provided). For parties in the traditional healthcare provider sector that provide clinical services, an affiliation or JV, which is easier to unwind or terminate than a traditional M&A transaction, can allow the parties to “test the waters” in a new, combined business venture. The affiliation or JV can take a variety of forms, including technology licensing agreements; the creation of a new entity to house the telehealth mission, which then has contractual arrangements with the both the JV parties; and exclusivity arrangements relating to use of the technology and access to patient populations.

While an affiliation or JV offers flexibility, can minimize the need for a large upfront investment, and can be an attractive alternative to a more permanent purchase or sale, there can be increased regulatory risk. Entrepreneurs, investors, and providers considering any such arrangement should bear in mind that in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and proliferation of telehealth, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS-OIG) has expressed a heightened interest in investigating so called “telefraud” and recently issued a special fraud alert regarding suspect arrangements, discussed in this prior post. Further, the OIG’s guidance on contractual joint ventures that would run afoul of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) should be front of mind and parties should strive to structure any affiliation or JV in a manner that meets or approximates an AKS safe harbor.

Target Telehealth Company Structure Compliance

Where telehealth companies are providing clinical services, and are not purely technology platforms, structuring and transaction diligence should focus on whether the target is operating in compliance with corporate practice of medicine (CPOM) laws. The CPOM doctrine is intended to maintain the independence of physician decision-making and reduce a “profits over people” mentality, and prevent physician employment by a lay-owned corporation unless an exception applies. Most states that have adopted CPOM impose similar restrictions on other types of clinical professionals, such as nurses, physical therapists, social workers, and psychologists. Telehealth companies often attempt to utilize a so-called “friendly PC” structure to comply with CPOM, whereby an investor-owned management services organization (“MSO”) affiliates with a physician-owned professional corporation (or other type of professional entity) (a “PC”) through a series of contractual agreements that foster a close working relationship between the MSO, PC, and PC owner and whereby the MSO provides management services, and sometimes start-up financing. The overall arrangement is intended to allow the MSO to handle the management side of the PC’s operations without impeding the professional judgment of the PC or the medical practice of its physicians and the PC owner.

CPOM Compliance Considerations and Diligence for Telehealth Companies

A sophisticated buyer will want to confirm that the target’s friendly PC structure is not only formally established, but is also operationalized properly and in a manner that minimizes fraud and abuse risk. If CPOM compliance gaps are identified in diligence this may, at worst, tank the deal and, at best, cause unexpected delays in the transaction timeline, as restructuring may be required or advisable. The buyer may also request additional deal concessions, such as a purchase price reduction and special indemnification coverage (with potentially a higher liability limit and an escrow as security). Accordingly, a telehealth company anticipating a sale or fund raise would be well served to engage in a self-audit to identify any CPOM compliance issues and undertake necessary corrective actions prior to the commencement of a transaction process.

Below are nine key questions with respect to CPOM compliance and related fraud and abuse issues that a buyer/investor in a telehealth transaction should examine carefully (and that the target should be prepared to answer):

  1. Does target have a PC that is properly incorporated or foreign qualified in all states where clinical services are provided (based on the location of the patient)?
  2. Does the PC owner (and any directors and officers of the PC, to the extent different from the PC owner) have a medical license in all states where the PC conducts business (to the extent in-state licensure is required)? To the extent the PC has multiple physician owners and directors/officers, are all such individuals licensed as required under applicable state law?
  3. Does the PC(s) have its own federal employer identification number, bank account (including double lockbox arrangement if enrolled in federal healthcare programs), and Medicare/Medicaid enrollments?
  4. Does the PC owner exercise meaningful oversight and control over the governance and clinical activities of the PC? Does the PC owner have background and expertise relevant to the business (e.g., a cardiologist would not have appropriate experience to be the PC owner of a PC that provides telemental health services)?
  5. Are the physicians and other professionals providing clinical services for the business employed or contracted through a PC (rather than the MSO)? Employment or independent contractor agreements should be reviewed, as well as W-2s, and payroll accounts.
  6. Is the PC properly contracted with customers (to the extent services are provided on a B2B basis) and payors?
  7. Do the contractual agreements between the MSO and PC respect the independent clinical judgment of the PC owner and PC physicians and otherwise comply with state CPOM laws.
  8. Do the financial arrangements between the MSO, PC, and PC owner comply with AKS, the federal Stark Law, and corollary state laws and fee-splitting prohibitions, to the extent applicable?
  9. Is the PC owner or any other physician performing clinical services for the PC an equity holder in the MSO? If so, are these equity interests tied to volume/value of referrals to the PC or MSO (i.e., if the MSO provides ancillary services such as lab or prescription drugs) or could equity interests be construed as an improper incentive to generate healthcare business (e.g., warrants that can only be exercised upon attainment of certain volume)?

Telehealth companies considering a sale or financing transaction, and potential buyers and investors, would be well served to spend time on the front end of a potential transaction assessing the above issues to determine potential risk areas that could impact deal terms or necessitate any friendly PC structuring.

Article By Hannah E. Zaitlin, Mitchell D. Lindstrom, David S. Sanders, and Natasha Allen of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP