Federal Reserve Doubles Down on Oversight of Crypto Activities for Banks

The Federal Reserve Board (the “FRB”) issued Supervision and Regulation Letter 22-6 (“SR 22-6”), providing guidance for FRB-supervised banking organizations (referred to collectively herein as “FRB banks”) seeking to engage in activities related to cryptocurrency and other digital assets.  The letter states that prior to engaging in crypto-asset-related activities, such FRB banks must ensure that their activities are “legally permissible” and determine whether any regulatory filings are required.  SR 22-6 further states that FRB banks should notify the FRB prior to engaging in crypto-asset-related activities.  Any FRB bank that is already engaged in crypto-asset-related activities should notify the FRB promptly regarding the engagement in such activities, if it has not already done so.  The FRB also encourages state member banks to contact state regulators before engaging in any crypto-asset-related activity.

These requirements send a clear message to FRB banks and in fact to all banks that their crypto-asset related activities are considered to be risky and not to be entered into lightly.

Indeed, the FRB noted that crypto-asset-related activities may pose risks related to safety and soundness, consumer protection, and financial stability, and thus a FRB bank should have in place adequate systems, risk management, and controls to conduct such activities in a safe and sound manner and consistent with all applicable laws.

SR 22-6 is similar to guidance previously issued by the OCC and FDIC; in all cases, the agencies require banks to notify regulators before engaging in any kind of digital asset activity, including custody activities. The three agencies also released a joint statement last November in which they pledged to provide greater guidance on the issue in 2022.  Further, in an August 17, 2022 speech, FRB Governor Bowman stated that the FRB staff is working to articulate supervisory expectations for banks on a variety of digital asset-related activities, including:

  • custody of crypto-assets
  • facilitation of customer purchases and sales of crypto-assets
  • loans collateralized by crypto-assets, and
  • issuance and distribution of stablecoins by banking organizations

Interestingly, SR 22-6 comes a few days after a group of Democratic senators sent a letter to the OCC requesting that the OCC withdraw its interpretive letters permitting national banks to engage in cryptocurrency activities and a day after Senator Toomey sent a letter to the FDIC questioning whether it is deterring banks from offering cryptocurrency services.

Although past guidance already required banks to notify regulators of crypto activity, this guidance likely could discourage additional banks from entering into crypto-related activities in the future or from adding additional crypto services. In the end, it could have the unfortunate effect of making it more difficult for cryptocurrency companies to obtain banking services.

Copyright 2022 K & L Gates

Judge Approves $92 Million TikTok Settlement

On July 28, 2022, a federal judge approved TikTok’s $92 million class action settlement of various privacy claims made under state and federal law. The agreement will resolve litigation that began in 2019 and involved claims that TikTok, owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) and the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”) by improperly harvesting users’ personal data. U.S. District Court Judge John Lee of the Northern District of Illinois also awarded approximately $29 million in fees to class counsel.

The class action claimants alleged that TikTok violated BIPA by collecting users’ faceprints without their consent and violated the VPPA by disclosing personally identifiable information about the videos people watched. The settlement agreement also provides for several forms of injunctive relief, including:

  • Refraining from collecting and storing biometric information, collecting geolocation data and collecting information from users’ clipboards, unless this is expressly disclosed in TikTok’s privacy policy and done in accordance with all applicable laws;
  • Not transmitting or storing U.S. user data outside of the U.S., unless this is expressly disclosed in TikTok’s privacy policy and done in accordance with all applicable laws;
  • No longer pre-uploading U.S. user generated content, unless this is expressly disclosed in TikTok’s privacy policy and done in accordance with all applicable laws;
  • Deleting all pre-uploaded user generated content from users who did not save or post the content; and
  • Training all employees and contractors on compliance with data privacy laws and company procedures.
Copyright © 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Are You Ready for 2023? New Privacy Laws To Take Effect Next Year

Five new state omnibus privacy laws have been passed and will go into effect in 2023. Organizations should review their privacy practices and prepare for compliance with these new privacy laws.

What’s Happening?

While the US currently does not have a federal omnibus privacy law, states are beginning to pass privacy laws to address the processing of personal data. While California is the first state with an omnibus privacy law, it has now updated its law, and four additional states have joined in passing privacy legislation: Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, and Virginia. Read below to find out if the respective new laws will apply to your organization.

Which Organizations Must Comply?

The respective privacy laws will apply to organizations that meet particular thresholds. Notably, while most of the laws apply to for-profit businesses, we note that the Colorado Privacy Act also applies to non-profits. There are additional scope and exemptions to consider, but we provide a list of the applicable thresholds below.

The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) – Effective January 1, 2023

The CPRA applies to for-profit businesses that do business in California and meet any of the following:

  1. Have a gross annual revenue of over $25 million;
  2. Buy, receive, or sell the personal data of 100,000 or more California residents or households; or
  3. Derive 50% or more of their annual revenue from selling or sharing California residents’ personal data.

Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (CDPA) – Effective January 1, 2023

The CDPA applies to businesses in Virginia, or businesses that produce products or services that are targeted to residents of Virginia, and that:

  1. During a calendar year, control or process the personal data of at least 100,000 Virginia residents, or
  2. Control or process personal data of at least 25,000 Virginia residents and derive over 50% of gross revenue from the sale of personal data.

Colorado Privacy Act (CPA) – Effective July 1, 2023

The CPA applies to organizations that conduct business in Colorado or produce or deliver commercial products or services targeted to residents of Colorado and satisfy one of the following thresholds:

  1. Control or process the personal data of 100,000 Colorado residents or more during a calendar year, or
  2. Derive revenue or receive a discount on the price of goods or services from the sale of personal data, and process or control the personal data of 25,000 Colorado residents or more.

Connecticut Act Concerning Personal Data Privacy and Online Monitoring (CTPDA) – Effective July 1, 2023

The CTPDA applies to any business that conducts business in the state, or produces a product or service targeted to residents of the state, and meets one of the following thresholds:

  1. During a calendar year, controls or processes personal data of 100,000 or more Connecticut residents, or
  2. Derives over 25% of gross revenue from the sale of personal data and controls or processes personal data of 25,000 or more Connecticut residents.

Utah Consumer Privacy Act (UCPA) – Effective December 31, 2023

The UCPA applies to any business that conducts business in the state, or produces a product or service targeted to residents of the state, has annual revenue of $25,000,000 or more, and meets one of the following thresholds:

  1. During a calendar year, controls or processes personal data of 100,000 or more Utah residents, or
  2. Derives over 50% of the gross revenue from the sale of personal data and controls or processes personal data of 25,000 or more Utah residents.

The Takeaway 

Organizations that fall under the scope of these respective new privacy laws should review and prepare their privacy programs. The list of updates may involve:

  • Making updates to privacy policies,
  • Implementing data subject request procedures,
  • How your business is handling AdTech, marketing, and cookies,
  • Reviewing and updating data processing agreements,
  • Reviewing data security standards, and
  • Providing training for employees.
© 2022 ArentFox Schiff LLP

Episode 3: How Law Firms Can Benefit From CRM Technology With Chris Fritsch of CLIENTSFirst Consulting [PODCAST]

Welcome to Season 2, Episode 3 of Legal News Reach! NLR Managing Director Jennifer Schaller speaks with Chris Fritsch, Founder of CLIENTSFirst Consulting, about how law firms can thoughtfully and successfully integrate customer relationship management systems, or CRMs, into their daily operations—boosting contact management, business development, and client service in the process.

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

INTRO  00:02

Hello, and welcome to Legal News Reach, the official podcast for the National Law Review. Stay tuned for a discussion on the latest trends in legal marketing, SEO, law firm best practices, and more.

Jennifer Schaller

Thank you for tuning into the Legal News Reach podcast. My name is Jennifer Schaller, the Managing Director of the National Law Review. In this episode, I’ll be speaking with Chris Fritsch, who’s the CRM and Marketing Technology Success Consultant and Founder of CLIENTSFirst Consulting. She’s going to talk to us about CRM technology, specifically how it impacts law firms. Chris, would you like to introduce yourself?

Chris Fritsch

Happy to do so! I am Chris Fritsch, I’m actually a CRM Success Consultant. And no, that is not an oxymoron. For the last over 15 years, my team at CLIENTSFirst has helped hundreds of top firms succeed with CRM and related and integrated technology. I’m actually a little bit of a recovering attorney, which is sort of how I got into the industry. And it’s just been a great 15 years working together with top law firms.

Jennifer Schaller

What prompted you to start CLIENTSFirst Consulting?

Chris Fritsch

You know, that’s a good question. I actually worked at a CRM company years ago, and those companies are terrific at building and selling and installing and implementing software…not necessarily as great at being able to take the time to get to know each law firm to really understand the firm’s needs, the requirements, the culture in order to really help them succeed with the technology. So I saw that was a real opportunity to be able to help clients succeed. The company’s called CLIENTSFirst. And so we’re really focused on sharing information, ideas, best practices for success gained from years of experience doing this, and it has been a great 15 years of growth. And the most important part is we get to help clients.

Jennifer Schaller

So what are the main reasons that prompt law firms to implement CRM systems?

Chris Fritsch

CRM systems are about communication, coordination, and client service. And of course, business development. Law firms of all types and sizes really are focused on those areas. So I think that’s why CRM has been such an important piece of technology over the years.

Jennifer Schaller

What are the most common uses of CRMs in law firms?

Chris Fritsch

Use in most firms starts with contact management and list and event management. Those are some of the fundamental capabilities that CRM systems provide. You know, in law firms we write, we speak, we do events and webinars and seminars. That’s a really big need, and CRM fills that need very, very well. These are things that are maybe not exciting, but essential. So that’s creating a centralized repository of information that can be clean and correct and easily updated. That’s usually where firms start. Being able to have marketing build and manage the list to be able to get all the events done and managed, to be able to allow the attorneys or assistants to update lists, and just basically making sure that clients and prospects and other contacts are getting the information that the attorneys and the law firm need to put out there. You know, because as attorneys, if we can’t share information about our experience and our expertise and changes in the law and capabilities, then it makes it really challenging to develop business. And so that’s where CRMs start, but what we’re seeing more recently is a focus on more advanced business development features. Business development has taken a little bit longer in legal than in some other professional services, but I think we’re getting there. So we’re seeing a lot more emphasis on those tools right now. A lot of people right now are actually switching CRM systems because they want to get some more of these advanced business development features.

Jennifer Schaller

What are some of the features law firms should be implementing but that aren’t being utilized enough, in your opinion? Or does that kind of piggyback on business development stuff?

Chris Fritsch

Yeah, that’s a big piece of it. The big thing is activity tracking. That’s one of those things that everybody agrees, it would be incredibly valuable to know who’s taking who to lunch, who are we doing proposals with? Who are we having phone calls and meetings with? But the challenge with that is those have to be entered manually. A lot of things in CRM we’ve been able to automate, but that’s one that you really just can’t because the information lives in the attorney’s head, right? So it’s got to be done, and you can’t have computers or even assistants doing that really well. But everybody wants the information. So I think that has been a big challenge. Probably one of the biggest firm challenges is to get attorneys to sort of function that way and think like salespeople, whereas outside of legal, you know, you can mandate behavior and do reporting on activities. In a professional services, specifically, in a law firm model that’s a little more challenging, there’s sort of a hesitancy to mandate anything. So we do have challenges with that. That also sort of turns into adoption. You know, that has always been a challenge as well. In a law firm time is money, literally. And so anything that they have to do in terms of technology that takes away from serving the clients and frankly, billing time, there’s got to be a lot of value there. Any of the features that require them to do data entry are going to be challenging because we have taken a little bit longer to be focused on business development. There are really advanced pipeline features in a lot of the CRMs, outside of legal, and now in some of the ones that are vertically focused for law firms, but getting attorneys to enter data into a pipeline is probably going to be challenging, and it may not be the highest and best use of their time. And so a lot of firms that are dealing with implementing pipelines, they’re having internal business development resources actually do the data entry, and then just getting the information related to reports and pitches and things. Let them give that information to the attorneys to use when they need it.

Jennifer Schaller

These people are billing their time in six-minute increments. What are some of the built-in features of CRMs that help law firms capture the things that lawyers are reluctant to do other than…. obviously, there needs to be a culture change. But what are some of the things that make it smoother?

Chris Fritsch

So there’s actually a tool that I’m a big fan of called ERM, or enterprise relationship management. And it is a technology most of the CRMs in the legal vertical do have built in, but there are also some freestanding systems. And what they do is they create the contacts from the signature blocks of the emails. So the attorneys don’t have to deal with contact data entry and collection and updating. In the past, the systems worked with sort of an Outlook Sync process where the contacts would flow in, but lately, people don’t use Outlook like they used to. I mean they still use it for email and for calendar, but not so much address books. So the problem with address books was people were putting data in but never removing it. And so you just ended up with more and more contacts. And you know, they’re not particularly relevant anymore. These ERM systems will create good contacts, because frankly, if you just got a signature block, the information is probably good. And so you enter that data–it does it automatically. And so attorneys don’t have to do data entry, which is great. But it also creates a who-knows-who relationship, which is something we really want to be able to capture. You know, if you want to pitch some client or get a connection in a corporation, you might want to know who in the firm knows that person. The ERM uses an algorithm based on recency and frequency of communication to tell us not just who, but how well they know that person based on frequency and recency of communication. There are also some calendar capture features that are available; I think ERM is really the one that has changed the game. Also being able to have a connected email and e-marketing and event management tool that allows the data to flow seamlessly between the systems is incredibly important, because otherwise you end up with disconnected databases and double data entry, and I think e-marketing systems are also a really big deal.

Jennifer Schaller

Okay, wow, I didn’t know the depth of that. That’s really interesting. One of the things that you’ve touched on is lawyers and law firms and culture and change, so how large, or substantial or established, does a law firm need to be to benefit from a CRM?

Chris Fritsch

Pretty much any firm can benefit from CRM, because again, it is the fundamental communication coordination, client service, business development that’s important to every firm. So they’re different types of software for different sizes of firms. And I’ve worked with the largest firms in the world, and we help them find systems that meet their needs. But every once in a while, I’ll work with a solo or small firm, and they have different needs, and, of course, different budget requirements. And so they have different types of products that make sense for them. But I think pretty much anybody from the largest firm in the world to a solo can benefit from CRM.

Jennifer Schaller

Knowing that small law firms are not a homogenous group, meaning that intellectual property law firms or even a solo can have different needs than a family law practitioner, what would be some of the core features that even smaller law firms can look for in CRM systems, or should kind of have as, like, table stakes?

Chris Fritsch

Smaller firms for the longest time had challenges trying to implement CRM because they were licensed models, they require a lot of professional services to install and implement, and they required a lot of staff to manage, and that’s contrary to the small firm model. Ideally, in a perfect world, they want a less expensive option that doesn’t require as much training and ongoing sort of care and feeding. And what’s happened is most of the software providers have gone to a subscription model because it makes it easier to budget for the software over time, you don’t have a big upfront cost, and a lot of them have also moved to the cloud.

Jennifer Schaller

You’ve touched a couple different times about large law firms having multiple data stewards and dedicated CRM people, but smaller firms or firms that are not in the select 100 may not have those resources. What type of staff is required to succeed with CRM technology, or what tasks would need to be at a bare minimum assigned to somebody within their teams to get it up and running or to make it a viable option within the firm?

Chris Fritsch

The larger the firm and the more complex the system and processes required, the more staff and the more resources that are going to be needed, the more training that’s going to be needed, the more communication and planning and strategy. That’s always important. But right now we’re working with a firm that has a database with 7 million records. They’re bringing together information from databases all over the world, that’s a big undertaking. Whereas the most essential staff in bigger firms with a bigger implementation, you’re going to need perhaps a CRM manager, whereas a smaller firm with a smaller implementation that’s less complex, you’re not going to need a CRM manager, perhaps you might just need someone part time. The most important staff though, is in the area of data quality, because data degrades rapidly. And now with all the changes taking place, people are changing jobs left and right. So data is degrading faster than ever, and you’ve made this investment in the technology. But as an attorney, I can tell you, if the data is bad, then the system is bad, and I’m not going to use it. So you definitely have to focus on that data to get the return on investment from the technology. And you know, firms don’t necessarily want to hire a data steward, but it’s super important to focus on.

Jennifer Schaller

So firms are stretched, and plus, you touched upon too, everybody’s changing jobs. So it’s really tough for smaller firms to hire, any smaller organization to hire. So how does the firm stretch their existing staff to implement or, you know, make viable a useful CRM system, because as you mentioned, it’s only as good as its data?

Chris Fritsch

You know, one of the biggest trends we’re seeing is the move to outsourcing and having that really escalate. You know, firms have been outsourcing data stewards for decades, well, for at least the 10, 15 years that I’ve been around, because not every firm has the luxury of being able to hire a data steward or an experienced CRM manager who’s done a rollout before. Again, most firms don’t have the ability or even the desire to have their internal people doing data work. And so they’re turning to outsourcing to fill these positions, because the great thing about it is you can get the experience and the expertise, and just the amount of hours that you require. So especially for smaller firms, you wouldn’t want to hire a 40 hour a week data steward anyway. But with outsourcing, you can get you know, 10 hours a week, 20 hours a week, whatever you need during the rollout, and then you want to focus ongoing you might need even less, but you need to dedicate those resources, and you don’t have to do it with internal people, because data quality work is not particularly fun, and a lot of people don’t enjoy doing it. But yeah, we outsource a lot of data stewards. It’s actually our highest growth area right now because of the focus on outsourcing.

Jennifer Schaller

Okay, so a part of lawyers is–speaking lawyer to lawyer—a bit of a control freak. You might not have noticed or heard about it, but you know, anyway. So outsourcing is kind of a scary thing to them, meaning, you know, a smaller firm might be in the devil of not being able to hire somebody or being able to hire too much of somebody, as you indicated. So with outsourcing, what would they look for?

Chris Fritsch

I think number one is experience and reputation. All of our folks that do data work, you know, we try to hire the right people that have the aptitude to actually enjoy the work and then train them, train them and retrain them. We spend a lot of time really getting them to understand not just how to use the CRM tools and how to do the data quality, but also to do the research and how to also understand the law firm. There’s a lot of complex relationships in terms of financial institutions, I think that’s a really big piece of it, you know, having a lot of knowledge and experience doing it. For a lot of our clients, very, very large law firms, they have often significant privacy and security issues, so we have a team of US based people, because that helps them with challenges around GDPR. So you may want to ask, where are your people based? Can they do background checks is a really big important thing.

Jennifer Schaller

Oh, wow. That’s true, yeah, especially if they’re doing government or any type of work. You brought up some really good points there. So you mentioned training, so law firms that would consider outsourcing would be then benefiting from the training not only that they receive from a company like yours, but experience that they’ve picked up from other law firms along the way.

Chris Fritsch

The training is challenging. So you know, you have to train and retrain, you know, things are changing all the time with the software and systems. And it really is a big component, making sure that you have good experienced people. And then we also have a team that does quality checking as well, because I think in law more than any other industry even more than in other professional services, you mentioned earlier, you know, being a little bit of a control freak, we want good data. Outside of legal people are thrilled to have data quality of 70% . “We have automated data sources that’ll get you 70% correct data.” In a law firm 70% would get you fired! Right?

Jennifer Schaller

We got 70% of your lawsuit correct! That tends to not be an acceptable thing for attorneys, and I think they tend to hold anybody else that they work with or any product that they use to similar standards. It’d be really challenging. What are some of the things, not that there’s any silver bullet–and I’m sorry, legal marketers, there isn’t–to kind of overcome some of the, you know, maybe they were at another firm, or they had a friend who had a problem with it. Lawyers actually talk amongst each other and have a tendency to, well, they’ll discount it for their own clients, other people’s experiences, but if they have a lawyer friend who went through something, and it was negative, that’s, you know, good as gold. How do you overcome some lawyers’ reluctance, because of bad data quality, which seems to cause the problems to incrementally kind of chip away at that?

Chris Fritsch

You know, we used to think—and these things are tied together–so bad data is a big challenge. And adoption is a big challenge, getting attorneys to “use” the system, right? So we forever have defined adoption as attorneys would get trained, they would go through their data, they would, you know, mark the ones that they wanted to share or didn’t want to share, the assistants had to get involved and it all sort of fell down because again, we’re busy, and you know, time is money, literally. You know, I think the adoption challenge is tied to the data. Because again, if the data is bad, they don’t want to use the system. So going to these more automated ERM systems that pull in good data, I think it’s time that we really need to redefine adoption from attorneys doing data entry, which is probably not the highest and best use of someone’s time who’s billing $500, $200, $1,000 an hour, whatever it might be, let’s do more automation. And the other thing with the data is, it used to be the researchers would say 30% was degrading each year. Now it’s got to be closer to 50% with, you know, the Great Realignment and you know, staffing and people working from home and hybrid and people are moving and companies are starting and ending and getting acquired. So if you don’t focus on the data, if you don’t have good data, it’s going to hinder adoption, and it’s sort of all tied together. So we have to really sort of think through things, and that’s, again, why we are so focused on the ERM methodology. It minimizes attorney data entry, it maximizes good data, it automates the process, it really just is a very helpful tool.

Jennifer Schaller

That’s really interesting. Anything that can be used to make it simpler to get it off the ground. You mentioned data quality. And you mentioned ERM software implementations or kind of pairing it with the CRM system or having a CRM system that has that built in as a way to help with data quality. What is the part, you mentioned, that’s still gonna leave maybe 20 to 30% of the data in there? How are ways that law firms or outsourcing groups or, maybe I got the statistic wrong, cleaning up the balance of that, or is that, even within law, acceptable?

Chris Fritsch

What we’ve arrived at is a process that I have named True DQ, and it’s a multi-step process. For some firms, it might just be one step, an outsourced data steward. But for some firms, it’s multiple steps. First thing that you need to do is assess the mess. Figure out how bad is your data, if you’re getting a new system, right, you may not want to move, if you’ve had your system, 10, 15 years, you probably don’t want to move all that data, you definitely don’t want to clean all that data, it can cost more than the CRM system. So helping figure out strategically, what are the right contacts to move, key client data, top lists, getting all that data together and getting it cleaned and deduplicated  because, again, as, attorneys, we all know the same people. Some of us have good data, some is bad, and it’s got to be researched but you want to minimize the amount of data so you want to do a really strong assessment process upfront. And that’s if you’re changing systems, or if you’re just trying to clean your existing system, you want to focus your limited time and resources where you can get the most value. So then there’s an automated data quality process. So you know, as I said earlier, automated, you know, only gets you part of the way there. But when you’re doing projects, like, sometimes we’re doing projects, where there’s 7 million records. You couldn’t hire enough people or have enough money or time to clean all that data. So you can take an automated process that will get you quickly and cost effectively part of the way there. And then you know, at each step in the process, you can say that’s good enough, or I want a cleaner, I want it better. And for a lot of law firms, they want it as clean as possible. And so the final step would be to add data stewards to kind of finish off the remaining data that couldn’t be automatically matched. And also we have a quality checking process to quality check the results of the automated process as well. There’s a lot that goes on to keep good data clean and correct and complete, but it’s absolutely imperative and essential to CRM success and people are investing a lot of money in these systems. They should be getting value from them.

Jennifer Schaller

I know you can’t, us lawyers are all profound individuals, lump them all into one group–

Chris Fritsch

We’re all special snowflakes.

Jennifer Schaller

We are all special snowflakes! But if you have noticed one trend, is it if the data is better, there’s more chance of a successful adoption in use, or does that tend to be one of the biggest hurdles to overcome?

Chris Fritsch

A lot of the new systems that are ERM focused, the adoption model changes a little bit. So before with sort of the CRM systems that have been around longer, the idea was an Outlook Sync. And then everybody used Outlook. And so the contacts–you know, in a law firm, things are sort of inside out, we don’t just join the firm and get given the keys to the CRM, here are the contacts and clients. Instead, they come in with the attorney and new lateral joins, and the contacts are with them. And so we’ve had these tools to bring in Outlook data, and that required training and installations at the attorney level, and then the data would sync back. And if it was wrong, and it changed somebody’s Outlook, you’d hear about it. With the new ERM methodology, and or maybe a one-way sync, so we’re not, you know, pushing potentially incorrect or what people think might be incorrect data back into the Outlook for the attorneys to see, instead we’re gathering the data through an electronic process, we’re getting good data from the signature blocks, we’re bringing that data in. For some of us, what we do is we actually enhance the data with things like industries, because industry marketing is a big priority for a lot of firms. And nobody says they do it really well, you either have to spend a lot of money to get subscriptions, or you have an automated process, or you can do it manually. And so we try to help firms think through strategies to enhance the data when their data stewarding it with company information, size of company, industry of company, so then you don’t have to rely as much on the attorneys. Like they’ll come and say, “Hey, we want to pull an energy list. Because we’re doing an energy seminar.” Well, you can’t do that. “We want to pull a list of clients.” But without a time and billing integration, you really can’t do that. So these new tools are really helping automate that process, so suddenly, maybe I can’t pull 100% perfect energy or manufacture or whatever, pharmaceutical industry list, but I can get you at least a really good start, and then you can add individuals to it. These are tools we didn’t have years ago. And they really are taking the attorneys out of the process and taking them out of the data entry role. And instead, let’s give them the data they want. Let them be consumers of the data, let’s get them the reports that they need to do what they need to do and minimize the time required. Sometimes it’s staff that are helping to support these processes as well. So never underestimate the power of having good folks to help the attorneys get what they need. And so we’re going to define it instead of attorneys entering data into the system, it’s going to be attorneys getting value out of the system. And that’s how I think adoption needs to be redefined.

Jennifer Schaller

So once they see the value in it, they begin to adopt and of course they see another attorney getting value out of it.

Chris Fritsch

And while you might use ERM, when you implement a CRM you have to consider both a macro and a micro. So we’ve got to be able to get the contacts to do the list to do the events. That’s sort of a core component of it. And if you don’t get that data, you can’t do the other things like the fundamental who-knows-who and the business development. So a lot of firms are going to, “Okay, let’s do an ERM model and capture the context.” And most of the attorneys then don’t have to be users of the system. Instead, you can give licenses to key business developers or practice group leaders or whoever might need the information. And they have the data that they need to do what they need to do. But the day-to-day work of the attorneys is they can focus on the clients.

Jennifer Schaller

That’s interesting to hear, and good to hear actually, that it’s rolling out a lot better. You founded CLIENTSFirst Consulting 15 years ago. I’m not trying to age you, you must have founded it when you were 15 and, you know, even more of a prodigy. Name some of the ways that not only things have changed over the last 15 or so years, but some of the incremental successes I mean, it might have been a small firm, it might not resonate, but what are some of the wins that you’ve had, or some of the ways that you’ve been able to help firms succeed over the years?

Chris Fritsch

A key thing that we do, I think, that firms have found particularly valuable is called a CRM Success Assessment. And so whether you’re getting your first CRM system or you’re looking to change systems, or just improve your current implementation, we come in really getting to know the firm. So we do meetings with key stakeholders throughout the firm to really understand their different needs and requirements, and document that. The last thing you want to do is oh, we need a CRM, let’s figure out what everybody else is using, because that has proven over time to be a recipe for disaster. Instead, it’s all about your unique firm, your needs, requirements, and culture. And so we document that for the firms and then we help them go through a selection process where we take the information from the assessment and turn that into what we call a vendor demo roadmap that we can provide to the providers so that they can follow a roadmap during the demonstration. “Hey, focus on these things that the firm really cares about. Let’s compare apples to apples. Let’s put together the right proposal and get the right technology.” Because that’s the first thing is making sure you get the right system. The other thing is back many years ago, success was defined as, “We’re going to roll it out all at once and everybody’s going to use it.” Right? All the attorneys are going to log in every day. Well, I think it’s been 20 years, and it hasn’t happened yet. So again, we’re sort of redefining success doing the macro for the whole firm, but then really being able to, and this sounds a little counterintuitive at a big firm, but you really focus on the micro. Let’s get the macro right, you know, lists and events. But then let’s find the strong leader that has a problem to solve or a process to improve. And the beauty of CRM is it can do 1,000 things, the problem has been it can do 1,000 things, you should probably do three, or maybe even one. And so you get all these tools, but you only want to implement one here. And then you know, each group might want to do something a little differently, one group may actually track activities, there’s a big firm, we’ve worked with that one group is really focused on activity tracking. And so then configure the system to support that one thing, build the reports out the processes around it, the training materials around it, and you train that group on that thing, and maybe just that thing. You know, but then you might have, you know, a labor and employment group that does a lot of events, and webinars and seminars. Let’s show them how to manage the invitation process and add people to lists because they care about that. And so you focus on special snowflake scenarios, one group at a time, and you call them a pilot group. I had a smart Managing Partner say to me, you do a pilot group, and you get them success, you communicate that success, and you do another pilot group, and everybody feels like a special snowflake. Everybody gets their needs met. But it’s not quick. But it’s not designed to be quick, because CRM is not a project. It’s not an initiative, it is a fundamental improvement in how the firm manages its most important asset, its relationships. So as a result, it never really ends. And so if you do it in little pilot groups, you know, you’ve got forever to get better at it. You know, a lot of it is sort of daunting, you’re like, “Oh, our data is terrible.” Well, that’s okay you know, you don’t have to clean it up 100% right now, you want to do it in pieces and get successes, do it in increments, focus on top clients, focus on, you know, one group is doing an event, focus on their lists. There are a lot of different ways to do it to be effective, and get incremental successes, because they do they all add up.

Jennifer Schaller

Start with a coalition of the willing. Thank you, Chris, for going through some of the pilot groups at larger law firms, that sounds like a good way to find some early successes and kind of replicate it, but maybe in a customized form with different groups within a firm. But again, the majority of law firms are small. And while it’s great to learn from what the larger firms are doing, are there any initiatives, you know, to help smaller firms, either within your company or industry-wide, to work with CRMs?

Chris Fritsch

There are definitely some products out there for smaller firms. But what I have seen over the years is it’s been a little challenging because of the resource constraints and the staffing constraints. And so for years, smaller firms would come to me and say, you know, can you help us find a system? And you know, now the software is less expensive because of the subscription model. But the professional services has always been $50,000 plus dollars. And for a smaller firm, that’s without integrations. You’re looking at a lot of money to do the professional services. And so we’ve actually come up with a new piece of software we’re about to come out with that, hopefully, is going to make it easier for smaller firms to get a system to do what they need to help capture and augment the data and do lists. And so we’re pretty excited about that.

Jennifer Schaller

Okay, so if I can ask, what are some of the features in the product that CLIENTSFirst has coming out that helps small firms?

Chris Fritsch

As you can imagine, because I talk so much about it, I really think ERM is a fundamental piece of it. And we’re also going to be doing data cleaning, because obviously that’s a big focus for us as well and data augmentation with the things that we talked about, business information and industry information. And we’re going to make sure the data is clean and correct and complete. And we’re also going to have a built-in email functionality too. So it’s all integrated into a single platform to help smaller firms succeed as well. So the largest firms in the world, they need a certain type of software, and we thoroughly enjoy helping them succeed. And we just think that the smaller firms could benefit from some additional options.

Jennifer Schaller

That’s good to hear. Otherwise, a whole portion of the market is underserved. As always, thanks to Chris Fritsch from CLIENTSFirst Consulting for joining us today and for updating us on the nuances of CRM, specifically in the legal world or in the law firm environment. Law firms have such a challenging time to know where to start or what to do with what they already have. And thank you for helping us understand some of those steps or decision trees that go into law firms or especially smaller firms picking a CRM system. Thanks, Chris.

Chris Fritsch

Happy to help and thank you for the invitation to be here.

OUTRO 

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.

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC

GAO Publishes Report on Technologies for PFAS Assessment, Detection, and Treatment

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report on July 28, 2022, entitled Persistent Chemicals: Technologies for PFAS Assessment, Detection, and Treatment. GAO was asked to conduct a technology assessment on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) assessment, detection, and treatment. The report examines the technologies for more efficient assessments of the adverse health effects of PFAS and alternative substances; the benefits and challenges of current and emerging technologies for PFAS detection and treatment; and policy options that could help enhance benefits and mitigate challenges associated with these technologies. GAO assessed relevant technologies; surveyed PFAS subject matter experts; interviewed stakeholder groups, including government, non-governmental organizations (NGO), industry, and academia; and reviewed key reports. GAO identified three challenges associated with PFAS assessment, detection, and treatment technologies:

  • PFAS chemical structures are diverse and difficult to analyze for health risks, and machine learning requires extensive training data that may not be available;
  • Researchers lack analytical standards for many PFAS, limiting the development of effective detection methods; and
  • The effectiveness and availability of disposal and destruction options for PFAS are uncertain because of a lack of data, monitoring, and guidance.

GAO developed the following three policy options that could help mitigate these challenges:

  • Promote research: Policymakers could support development of technologies and methods to more efficiently research PFAS health risks. This policy option could help address the challenge of limited information on the large number and diversity of PFAS, as well as a lack of standardized data sets for machine learning;
  • Expand method development: Policymakers could collaborate to improve access to standard reference samples of PFAS and increase the pace of method and reference sample development for PFAS detection. This policy option could help address the challenges of a lack of validated methods in media other than water, lack of analytical standards, and cost, which all affect researchers’ ability to develop new detection technologies; and
  • Support full-scale treatment: Policymakers could encourage the development and evaluation of full-scale technologies and methods to dispose of or destroy PFAS. This policy option could help address the challenges of cost and efficiency of disposal and destruction technologies and a lack of guidance from regulators.

GAO notes that these policy options involve possible actions by policymakers, which may include Congress, federal agencies, state and local governments, academia, and industry.

©2022 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

New Survey Shows that Americans are Ready for More Deliveries by Drone

Auterion, a drone software company, commissioned a survey from the market research company, Propeller Insights, of 1,022 adults. The survey was gender-balanced and distributed across age groups from 18 to 65+, living in rural, suburban, and city environments in the United States, and was conducted in May 2022.

In the report summarizing the survey, “Consumer Attitudes on Drone Delivery,” Auterion reveals that 58 percent of Americans like the idea of drone deliveries, and 64 percent think drones are becoming an option for home delivery now or will be in the near future. With more than 80 percent of those surveyed reporting that they have packages delivered to their homes on a regular basis, the survey finds that Americans are generally ready to integrate drone delivery into daily life for ease and speed. Of the 64 percent who see drones becoming a more common option for home delivery, 32 percent think it’s possible now or within the next 1 to 2 years.

Only 36 percent of those surveyed had doubts about this type of drone integration, including some individuals who think the general public or governments will not approve of large-scale drone adoption for delivery and others who just prefer that drone delivery doesn’t happen at all.

With individuals choosing more than one option, the survey found that the most common types of home package deliveries reported by consumers today, by vehicles and trucks, are:

  • 39 percent – groceries

  • 34 percent – clothing

  • 33 percent – household items

  • 31 percent – meals

  • 27 percent – medicine

  • 11 percent – baby food/needs

Based on these findings, those surveyed were also asked if they were willing to consider drones as a “new corner store” for conveniently delivering small and last-minute necessities: 54 percent of the individuals said “yes.”

With regard to concerns related to these drone deliveries, 43 percent of those surveyed fear the drone will break down and they will not receive their item, and 19 percent are worried about not having human interaction with their delivery person. However, drone delivery and systems provide accurate trackability and direct delivery, and, therefore are more capable of accurate delivery timing. Delivery drones are built to analyze the environment with precision, to communicate through control software in a common language and predict safe landing spots for the packages. Air space is becoming a great option in a time when highways are filled with cars and trucks, and fuel prices are rising. Drones can help to reduce our reliance on gas-powered delivery vehicles, and provide safer, more flexible, and more cost-effective delivery.

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

Government Brings First Cryptocurrency Insider Trading Charges

In a series of parallel actions announced on July 21, 2022, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated criminal and civil charges against three defendants in the first cryptocurrency insider trading case.

According to the criminal indictment, DOJ alleges that a former employee of a prominent cryptocurrency exchange used his position at the exchange to obtain confidential information about at least 25 future cryptocurrency listings, then tipped his brother and a friend who traded the digital assets in advance of the listing announcements, realizing gains of approximately $1.5 million. The indictment further alleges that the trio used various means to conceal their trading, and that one defendant attempted to flee the United States when their trading was discovered. The Government charged the three with wire fraud and wire fraud conspiracy. Notably, and like the Government’s recently announced case involving insider trading in nonfungible tokens, criminal prosecutors did not charge the defendants with securities or commodities fraud.

In its press release announcing the charges, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Damian Williams said: “Today’s charges are a further reminder that Web3 is not a law-free zone. Just last month, I announced the first ever insider trading case involving NFTs, and today I announce the first ever insider trading case involving cryptocurrency markets. Our message with these charges is clear: fraud is fraud is fraud, whether it occurs on the blockchain or on Wall Street. And the Southern District of New York will continue to be relentless in bringing fraudsters to justice, wherever we may find them.”

Based on these facts, the SEC also announced charges against the three men in a civil complaint alleging securities fraud. In order to assert jurisdiction over the matter, the SEC alleges that at least nine of the cryptocurrencies involved in the alleged insider trading were securities, and the compliant traces through the Howey analysis for each. The SEC has not announced charges against the exchange itself, though in the past it has charged at least one cryptocurrency exchange that listed securities tokens for failure to register as a securities exchange. Perhaps coincidentally, on July 21 the exchange involved in the latest DOJ and SEC cases filed a rulemaking petition with the SEC urging it to “propose and adopt rules to govern the regulation of securities that are offered and traded via digitally native methods, including potential rules to identify which digital assets are securities.”

In an unusual move, Commissioner Caroline Pham of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) released a public statement criticizing the charges. Citing the Federalist Papers, Commissioner Pham described the cases as “a striking example of ‘regulation by enforcement.’” She noted that “the SEC’s allegations could have broad implications beyond this single case, underscoring how critical and urgent it is that regulators work together.” Commissioner Pham continued, “Major questions are best addressed through a transparent process that engages the public to develop appropriate policy with expert input—through notice-and-comment rulemaking pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act.” She concluded by stating that, “Regulatory clarity comes from being out in the open, not in the dark.” The CFTC is not directly involved in either case, and it is atypical for a regulator to chide a sister agency on an enforcement matter in this fashion. On the same day, another CFTC Commissioner, Kristin Johnson, issued her own carefully-worded statement that seemed to support the Government’s actions.

Copyright © 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

How to Market Your Firm When You Don’t Need an In-House Hire

Law firms of any size need some level of marketing for long-term growth and sustainability. To be successful, every law firm must focus on its marketing. In an ideal world, lawyers would have the time to do what they do best and also market their business so it can grow. However, lawyers are inherently busy individuals, and it often doesn’t make sense to try to do it all themselves. Trying to do it all alone is overwhelming, and your time is best spent helping clients.

The simple answer to this time crunch dilemma is to hire someone in-house to take over the marketing efforts. But for many firms, that has a laundry list of drawbacks, such as additional time and expense. Perhaps you don’t have the marketing needs or budget to hire someone to market your law firm on a full- or even part-time basis. Hiring someone in-house means you need to have enough work and room in your budget to keep them busy. So, what are your other options?

Do it Yourself

Continuing to market your law firm yourself is one option. But let’s be realistic; you cannot do it all. With your busy schedule, you might only have one to three hours per week to dedicate to your marketing efforts. If this is the case, pick one or two marketing elements to be consistent with. For example, focus on your blogs or social media posts. If you need more help, as this tiny sliver of weekly time is not likely to move the needle or be sustainable, it’s time to outsource.

Hire an Agency or Freelancer

One viable option could be hiring an agency or freelancer to take over all or most of your marketing tasks. Outsourcing can help take some of this pressure off. Leaving your marketing in the hands of an experienced and knowledgeable agency or freelancer gives you peace of mind that it’s being done optimally. It also lets you focus on your clients and practicing law—which is what you went to school for, after all.

Identify Your Marketing Goals

If you decide to go this route, determine what your primary marketing goals are and go from there:

  • Do you want more leads?

  • Do you want to see more conversions?

  • Do you need to get more referrals?

  • Do you need a better ROI for your marketing dollars?

By listing your marketing goals and dreams and what you’re already doing, you can visualize your marketing gap and identify when it’s time to work with a professional. The more significant this gap, the more likely you need to hire a professional as soon as possible. In the meantime, you could be missing out on signing new clients.

Get an Outside Opinion

When you work with a freelancer or marketing agency, you will have a professional on your side who can also audit your marketing plan and tell you what your marketing is missing. Having another person, especially a marketing expert, lay eyes on what you’ve done to market your law firm and your future plans can help you identify your weaknesses and course correct to the right path. Marketing professionals can take what you have already started and turn it into something bigger and more successful.

Benefits of Working with a Marketing Agency or Freelancer

Working with a marketing agency or freelancer can provide your law firm with the following benefits:

  • Increased brand awareness

  • Greater ability to be found on the internet

  • More website traffic

  • Building trust and credibility with your audience

  • Improved online presence and engagement

  • Conversion rate optimization

  • Cost efficiency

  • Tracking and interpreting marketing efforts

  • Strategy and creativity – for example, creating targeted campaigns for niche clients

Last but not least, they allow you to focus on obtaining optimal outcomes for your clients instead of trying to market your law firm.

© 2022 Denver Legal Marketing LLC

Five Ways to Encourage Lawyer Participation With Your CRM System

Lawyers are busy and often resistant to change, so getting them on board with using a new or even your existing CRM system can be challenging.

But if you approach your CRM efforts as a value-added benefit that will support their marketing and business development efforts and is not difficult to use or time-consuming, you can increase CRM adoption and participation by your lawyer population at any size law firm or professional services organization. Here’s how.

  1. Explain what’s in it for them. Spend the time to clearly outline to users how the CRM system will directly benefit them, not just the organiztion as a whole.
  2. Put yourself in their shoes. Overcomplicated systems and non-technical users are a recipe for disaster. The whole point of implementing a CRM system is to improve efficiency and productivity, not hinder it, so make it easy for your lawyers to use it – or they simply won’t. In addition, lawyers use many different systems on a daily basis, such as time and billing, practice management and document management. CRM can become the one place to get all or most of what they need and allow them more time to be lawyers. Tip – look for CRM systems that include customizable dashboards to personalize daily views.
  3. Show lawyers how easy it is to gain value and insights from the information in the CRM on their own. Engage your marketing professionals to regularly meet with lawyers on a regular basis to gather new and updated contact information.
  4. Find a system that makes it easy for lawyers to share appointments and activities with CRM. This way, marketing professionals can provide strategic, proactive support for upcoming prospect and client meetings based on CRM data. For example, let’s say your marketing manager sees a calendar appointment with a prospective client on an attorney’s schedule. She could then reach out to them and proactively create pitch materials and share who-knows-who info, past matters information and other intelligence. After meetings, attorneys can be prompted to add their meeting notes in CRM too.
  5. Maintain clean, updated CRM data. Your CRM is only as useful and strong as the information entered into it, so if its users are inputting inaccurate data, you’ll only distill inaccurate insights from it. Ensure your data is up to date and accurate, and implement a regular data cleaning process which you can outsource if you don’t have internal resources to manage it.

5 Ways to Encourage Lawyer Participation With Your CRM System

While the keys to CRM adoption success will vary for each firm, the common, important thread is always the “value exchange.” If you make it easy for your attorneys to contribute valuable information – and ensure they are getting value out of the CRM – adoption and CRM success will follow.

Increasing CRM adoption and participation takes time, but it is an important investment to make and one that will provide many long-term benefits for your lawyers and your firm.

Another strategy to consider: redefining CRM success by minimizing the need for attorney adoption. Many smart firms are moving away from the traditional model of having attorneys be responsible for data entry. We’ll discuss that in an upcoming post.

© Copyright 2022 CLIENTSFirst Consulting

How Technological Advances Possibly Affect Automobile Insurance Policy Holders in New Jersey

In the 1970’s, “no-fault” insurance laws were enacted in New Jersey and several other states in response to criticism regarding the time-consuming and costly process of determining who was at-fault when an accident occurred. 

No fault insurance laws sought to streamline the claims process.  One key feature allowed insurers to pay for medical treatment of their injured policyholders.  This allowed for timely treatment and provider payment.  NJ automobile insurance policies offered up to $250,000 in coverage for medical treatment.  Recent changes in law now allow insureds to choose less coverage for medical treatment.

Further, recent technological advances change the way insurance customers choose coverage online.  While customers are served by the ease, flexibility, and pricing of policies through internet platforms, some adverse consequences naturally flow.  In this article, we discuss the changes, the consequences and subsequent response from participants and 3rd parties to address these outcomes.

Background

In the 1960’s, many more vehicles were entering into American roadways than in previous decades.  Baby boomers were coming of age and more cars were sold than ever before.  A natural consequence was automobile accidents and as a result, the necessary adjudication of which party caused the collision.

Insured and insurers alike expressed criticism of the process which consisted of petitioning the civil court system to resolve disputes.  In response, state legislatures adopted laws designed to streamline the process, and the 1970’s, many states adopted policies allowing injured accident victims to recover damages from their own auto insurance policies.

Almost half of the United States now have similar laws where policyholders are entitled to “benefits” from their own policies.  This of course means insurers are on the hook for more compensation, a fact they obviously utilized to lobby legislatures to place certain restrictions on the right to sue for damages not only against the insurer but against the tortfeasor as well.

One of the “trade-offs” made by the legislation was injured parties giving up some of their rights to sue under certain circumstances.

New Jersey No-Fault Law and Application

New Jersey’s no-fault laws have been amended throughout the years.  One of the most profound changes to the law occurred in 1998 with the passage of the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act (“AICRA”).  This change in law gave NJ residents the opportunity to purchase a standard or basic policy.

The standard policy is much like a typical no-fault policy containing Personal Injury Protection (PIP) which pays for medical treatment (more on this in a moment); liability coverage for injury or property damage to another; and uninsured/underinsured coverage which kicks in if the at-fault driver has no or insufficient coverage.

A basic policy provides minimum coverage in certain areas such as personal liability, property damages, and medical benefits.  Because having automobile insurance is mandatory, the purpose of the basic policy was essentially to afford an option to those who simply wanted to follow State mandates.

With regard to the right to sue restrictions, a New Jersey insured was and still is offered a choice – give up the right to sue for “non-permanent” injuries (those with no objective medical evidence of permanency) and have the premium reflect a savings or retain the right to sue (zero threshold) and pay a much higher premium to offset the cost.  Further, one of the things insurers had to trade was that victims would have $250,000 worth of PIP coverage to pay for medical expenses.

Changes to NJ No-Fault Insurance and Consequences

The AICRA changes have been in effect for years.  Since that time, the internet altered the manner in which policyholders interact with insurers when choosing coverages.

The internet streamlines the sales process for many businesses.  Insurance is no different.  What is troubling about this streamlining is the lack of guidance users receive from insurance companies regarding their choice of coverage.

For example, one website asks you to choose between:

  • More Affordable
  • Popular Coverage
  • More Coverage

It is not so much that the choices are misleading – they aren’t.  However, other than these descriptions, there is little explanation of their consequences.  If you choose the “more affordable” option, you’re led to a screen that explains the coverages in more detail.

Do people read all the information?

Can they understand the language even if they do decide to read it?

Could it be that the ease of picking the cheapest option is too much to overcome?

Consider this description from a law firm in Maryland:

“PIP is easy to overlook, especially in this age of online insurance applications. It’s one box out of 200 that you can check. The application will say something like, “Waive PIP and save $57.” The applicant clicks and saves 57 bucks…when in reality, they’ve lost $2,500 if they get in an auto accident. Too many Maryland policyholders waive their PIP coverage. It’s really a good coverage not to waive. “

Likewise, in New Jersey’s Standard Coverage Selection Form, used by insurance companies as a questionnaire to draft a proposed policy, the PIP limits selection form actually lists the savings from choosing lower limit PIP coverage.  Remarkably, no such comparison exists on the Form for reductions in Bodily Injury/Liability limits.

In the old days, an insurance agent was tasked to explain various coverages.  A real human being who would answer questions depicting real word scenarios involving accidents.  This obviously allowed for more informed choices.

Now, a great deal of selling is done online.  Many cost-aware customers might respond only to a difference in price.  Many can and do simply choose the cheaper alternative.  This could cause problems later if an accident occurs and a claim is made.

A Potential Problem with Minimal Coverages

Consider a situation where the insured has the minimum coverages for PIP – $15,000.  The insured sustains a back injury and begins treatment.  The Emergency Room visit totals $6,000 complete with 3 level CT scans which reveal problems with the upper and lower back.  The insured then follows up with an orthopedic who requests MRI scans on the back which equal another $2,500.  Add in some physical therapy and the $15,000 PIP limits are exhausted in a couple of months.

None of this is a problem if the scans fail to reveal a major issue.  A soft tissue injury is serviceable under this scenario in that the insured gets treatment and is on the way to recovery.  If the scans reveal problems, such as multiple herniated discs and impingement on the spinal cord, treatment options become a tricky proposition.

The treatment is tricky because the benefits are gone.  Now the injured party must seek other options – some of these can be costly.

Responding to the Need

In response to the above, providers, lawyers and other market participants stepped in to serve the need for accident victims to secure medical treatment.  The following are some of those alternative payment methods.

Letters of Protection

Letters of protection (LOP’s) are agreements between the injured party’s attorney and a medical provider that the medical bills will be “protected” by the proceeds of any settlement received.  In return for the attorney’s promise to honor the lien against file, medical providers will perform a variety of treatments to the plaintiff, including surgery.  Surgery is often a deciding factor in the plaintiff’s ability to secure the treatment because normally, the case’s settlement value is increased after the procedure.

Use Existing Health Insurance to Pay Bills After PIP is Exhausted

In some instances, plaintiffs can use their own health insurance to pay for accident medical bills.  In NJ, insureds can choose which coverage is primary.  However, some health insurance policies exclude coverage for car accidents.  The standard health insurance limitations apply as well.  These include the need to pay deductibles, co-payments and sometimes co-insurance.  Further, there may be limits on the choice of medical provider.  Some policies require doctors to be “in network”.

Litigation Funding

In many cases, litigation funding is used to pay for much-needed medical treatment.  Originally utilized to bridge the gap between accidents and settlement, litigation funding sought to alleviate the need for plaintiffs to accept low-ball settlement offers simply because they were struggling financially.  Because lawsuit funding is the sale of a portion of the future proceeds of a personal injury case, they are sometimes used to pay for surgical or other procedures when there is no coverage available.

Technological Advances and Practical Trade-offs

Technology has certainly made life more convenient over the years.  Conveniences exist today that weren’t in our collective consciousness 20 years ago.  Consider being able to speak via video conference to someone on the other side of the world for FREE, when the toll charges for an overseas telephone call were many dollars only a short time ago.

But technology can cut both ways.  The ease with which insurance consumers can pick coverages that may or may not be in their best interest may be one such trade-off.  Thankfully, market participants (doctors, lawyers, litigation finance companies) step in and address the outcomes which naturally arise.  Free markets usually perform this function admirably.

For more insurance and reinsurance legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2022 Fair Rate Funding