by John Darer CLU ChFC CSSC
A significant plaintiff structured settlement broker/ settlement planner prefers NOT to do qualified assignments which give his or her client a security interest (as opposed to general creditor status) because (1) he or she doesn't want to have their client sign the qualified assignment release and pledge document (2) they don't want to have to explain it to their client. Purportedly the cost of translation services might come into play.
The idea that I heard it from a defense oriented firm who offers secured creditor qualified assignments as standard practice (where available)**, makes this revelation more interesting.
Qualified Assignment Ethics
Is it ethical for structured settlement broker or settlement planner to make a life impacting decision for a client without having given them ALL their options with respect to creditor status? What about lawyers who bring the structured settlement broker or settlement planner to the table?
Many plaintiff advocates "foam at the mouth" on the subject of "full market access" (appointment or access to the most structured settlement annuity issuers). Why not on the subject of general creditor or secured creditor? In my opinion, the "eggshell skull theory" of "you take 'em as you find 'em" applies here. If you get a native Hispanic, Russian, Greek, Korean, Tagalog,Hindi, Swahili or whatever speaker, you or the lawyer have a duty to explain the option even if it costs you money to translate.
** not all structured annuity issuers offer secured creditor (John Hancock Life and New York Life presently do not)
Comments