Navigating the Uncharted Waters of Medicare Futures

By Jason D. Lazarus, J.D., LL.M., MSCC

Medicare’s clear as mud position on post-settlement care coverage in liability settlements poses significant challenges for personal injury attorneys. Understanding and addressing the potential denial of future injury-related care is crucial to safeguarding your clients’ future eligibility and ensuring compliance with the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP). This blog post explores the unregulated frontier of Medicare futures and the critical steps law firms must take to navigate these complexities.

Medicare’s Potential Denial of Future Care

Personal injury settlements today come with a new, daunting reality: the threat of Medicare denying future care for injury-related conditions. This risk is automatically triggered by the Mandatory Insurer Reporting (MIR) system, which reports settlements over $750 along with specific injury-related ICD codes. Once a denial occurs, the appeal process is long and arduous, often spanning multiple levels of internal Medicare appeals and federal courts. This can be particularly devastating in catastrophic injury cases, where denied care severely impacts the victim’s quality of life.

Understanding the Risks and Liabilities

Historically, trial lawyers did not worry about Medicare’s payment for future care post-settlement. However, this landscape has changed dramatically. Consider a scenario where a Medicare beneficiary’s settlement triggers a denial of future care because the settlement included funds for future medical expenses. This reality was highlighted in 2018 when a personal injury victim received a denial notice from Medicare, stating that “you may have funds set aside from your settlement to pay for your future medical expenses and prescription drug treatment related to your injury(ies).” The denial was related to a 2014 personal injury settlement wherein the Medicare beneficiary was paid money as damages for future injury related care.

The Evolution of MSAs

For years, personal injury settlements did not consider Medicare’s secondary payer status, shifting the burden to Medicare for future care. This changed in 2001 when CMS introduced MSAs for Workers’ Compensation cases to prevent shifting the burden from primary payers to Medicare. This compliance tool ensures that settlement funds for future medical expenses are used before Medicare becomes the primary payer.

Addressing Medicare Compliance Related to Futures

There is no one-size-fits-all solution for Medicare compliance related to futures. Each case requires a thorough, individualized analysis. If future medical expenses are funded by the settlement, doing nothing is risky. A client facing a denial of care may endure a lengthy appeals process, deciding between paying out-of-pocket or delaying care.

For trial lawyers, the risk of malpractice claims looms if they fail to advise clients properly about setting aside funds. Though no cases have yet seen Medicare pursuing law firms for failing to establish Medicare Set-Asides (MSAs), recent Department of Justice actions on MSP compliance emphasize the importance of addressing Medicare related issues.

Fundamental Concepts Related to Set-Asides

Set-asides are only necessary when dealing with current Medicare beneficiaries or those expecting to become beneficiaries within 30 months. Although no statute or case law mandates MSAs, they are similar to special needs trusts used in Medicaid or SSI settlements. Clients should be educated about MSAs to protect future Medicare eligibility for injury-related care just like with SNTs. MSAs can also be used to strategically set a baseline for medical damages in negotiations.

Why Consider Setting Up an MSA?

Despite the absence of a legal requirement for MSAs, conducting a legal analysis to determine the necessity of setting aside funds is crucial. This issue primarily concerns plaintiffs, with the penalty for non-compliance being the potential loss of future Medicare coverage for injury-related care. CMS recommends establishing an MSA to protect future Medicare eligibility, ensuring Medicare becomes the primary payer once the MSA is exhausted.

Conclusion

Medicare beneficiaries who attempt to shift the burden of future injury-related care to Medicare after a settlement may face denial of coverage. Medicare interprets the MSP Act as requiring consideration of their future interests. While set-asides are not legally mandated, they are recommended by CMS to protect future Medicare eligibility. Failure to address this issue can result in denied care and significant complications for clients and attorneys alike.

Turn to Synergy for experts who can help create a Medicare compliance strategy for your firm to mitigate liability risks and protect clients. Inadequate compliance processes can result in financial liabilities and worse yet damage to your firm’s reputation. Having a Synergy expert perform a Medicare Expert Case Evaluation (MECE) helps you educate your client related to future potential denial of care and then document your file appropriately. Ensure your Medicare processes protect both your clients and your practice by partnering with Synergy for total Medicare compliance.

James Swartz on TLV

Hello, Fellow Trial Lawyers!

In the latest episode of Trial Lawyer View, host Jason Lazarus speaks with James Swartz from Swartz & Swartz, delving into his pivotal role as a consumer advocate and founder of World Against Toys Causing Harm (WATCH). James emphasizes the crucial message that consumers should not assume toys are safe simply because they are on store shelves. He passionately highlights the overarching issue of manufacturers prioritizing marketing over safety, underscoring the need for stringent regulations and robust testing standards to prevent hazards like design flaws and inadequate warnings which harm children. Drawing from his extensive litigation experience, James shares some impactful examples of how litigation has spurred significant changes in product design and regulatory practices, ensuring accountability and advocating for safer consumer products. He highlights two cases, one involving the drowning of a child and another case where a child became entrapped by a container, where his legal tactics resulted in significant results for his clients.

Tune in to gain valuable insights from James Swartz’s extensive experience related to child consumer safety.

Thanks for listening!

Jason D. Lazarus, Esq.

Navigating the Maze: Understanding Medicare Compliance in Personal Injury Settlements

By Jason D. Lazarus, J.D., LL.M., MSCC

Representing Medicare-eligible clients in personal injury cases introduces a layer of complexity since it requires compliance with the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP). As trial lawyers, your duty extends beyond securing settlements; you must ensure clients are safeguarded against the potential pitfalls of non-compliance with MSP regulations. Before touching on compliance, it is first important to understand Medicare’s various components and their implications for the injured.

Medicare Program Overview

Medicare is divided into four parts:

Part A – Covers inpatient hospital and skilled nursing facility care.

Part B – Covers outpatient medical services, including physician visits and durable medical equipment.

Part D – Provides prescription drug coverage through private insurers.

Part C (Medicare Advantage Plans) – Offers an alternative, bundling Parts A, B, and D through private insurers.

Eligibility for Medicare typically begins at age 65 or after two years of receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits, crucial for many injury victims who qualify due to disability.

The Challenge of MSP Compliance

The MSP Act, established to curb federal healthcare costs, stipulates that Medicare acts as a secondary payer when other insurance (e.g., workers’ compensation, liability insurance and no-fault) is available. This secondary payer status necessitates careful navigation to ensure that Medicare’s interests are considered, particularly when dealing with conditional payments and future medical costs.

Navigating Conditional Payments and Medicare Set-Asides

Two primary issues arise related to MSP compliance:

Conditional Payments – Medicare payments made prior to settlement, which must be reimbursed/ addressed

Medicare Set-Asides (MSAs) – Future medical expenses that Medicare would otherwise cover.

The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act (MMSEA) of 2007 heightened the focus on MSP compliance by introducing the Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting (MIR) requirements. Insurers must report the Medicare status of claimants, along with relevant details, to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)upon settlement. Failure to comply by defendant Responsible Reporting Entities can result in significant penalties which is why you may experience hypervigilance with defense counsel related to Medicare.

Practical Challenges and Solutions

The advent of MIR has introduced challenges, such as ensuring the accurate reporting of medical diagnosis codes (ICD codes) and the correct date of accident. Errors in reporting these data points can lead to problems such as more complicated conditional payment resolution or potential future Medicare claims being denied. To mitigate these issues, trial lawyers should:

Work with opposing counsel to ensure accurate information is reported.

Only agree to precise release language that addresses MSP compliance without imposing unnecessary burdens on the injured party.

Stay informed and proactive in resolving conditional payments and considering MSAs where applicable.

Conclusion

Understanding and navigating Medicare compliance under the MSP Act is essential for trial lawyers. The complexities introduced by the MSP and MMSEA demand a thorough grasp of the regulations and a strategic approach to settlements involving Medicare beneficiaries. By doing so, lawyers can protect their clients’ interests and ensure compliance, avoiding the costly repercussions of non-compliance. Ensuring compliance not only protects clients but also shields the legal practice against potential liabilities. By acknowledging the complexities of MSP compliance and proactively addressing the associated challenges, trial lawyers can better serve their clients and navigate the maze of Medicare settlements with confidence.

Turn to Synergy for experts who can help create a Medicare compliance strategy for your firm to mitigate liability risks and protect clients. Inadequate compliance processes can result in financial liabilities and worse yet damage to your firm’s reputation. Ensure your Medicare processes protect both your clients and your practice by partnering with Synergy for total Medicare compliance. Learn more here.

Goodbye Chevron deference: What does this mean for Medicare Secondary Payer compliance?

By: Rasa Fumagalli, JD, MSCC, CMSP-F

The United States Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine in the recent case of Loper Bright Enterprises et al v Raimondo , Secretary of Commerce , et al. ( No. 22-451, 604 U.S. ____(2024)22-451). The Chevron doctrine was previously established by the Supreme Court in the 1984 Chevron U.S.A. Inc v Natural Resources Defense Counsil, Inc. case ( 467 U.S. 837 (1984)) which involved the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) interpretation of the language of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1997. In agreeing with the EPA’s interpretation, the Court established a two-step approach for review of agency action. The first step requires an examination of whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If it has not, a court should defer to the agency’s interpretation if it has offered a permissible construction of the statute, even if it is not the same reading a court would have reached.

In overruling the Chevron doctrine in the Loper Bright Enterprises case, the Supreme Court considered challenges to a rule promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 1801 et seq, which incorporates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 5 USC sec 551 et seq. Although the government argued that the Supreme Court should defer to the agency’s interpretation, the Court held that the APA instead required it to exercise independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority. Under the APA, courts should not defer to an agency interpretation of law simply because a statute is ambiguous. The Court’s decision contains a lengthy examination of the judiciary’s responsibilities when it comes to interpreting law and adjudicating cases and controversies. Agency interpretations of federal statutes should be accorded respect instead of deference.

So how will the death of Chevron deference impact parties that are seeking to comply with the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Act and regulations in their settlements?

As a starting point, it is important to remember that CMS is the agency charged with interpreting the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP Act or MSPA). The language of the MSP Act and supporting regulations specifically state that Medicare is precluded from making payments for services to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably be expected to be made promptly under any of the following” (i) workers’ compensation; (ii)liability insurance; (iii) no-fault insurance. (42 U.S.C.§1395y(b)(2)(A)(ii), 42 C.F.R.§411.20 (a)(2)). A primary payer’s responsibility for payment may be demonstrated by “a judgment, payment conditioned upon the beneficiary’s compromise, waiver, or release (whether or not there is a determination or admission of liability) of payment for items or services included in a claim against the primary payer or the primary payer’s insured or by other means…” (42 C.F. R§411.22). These provisions are enforced through Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA) which provides for mandatory insurer reporting for Medicare beneficiaries who receive settlements, judgments, awards or other payments.

The interpretation of the MSP has been described by many courts as notoriously “complex.” The true impact of the death of the Chevron deference won’t be known until we see litigation against the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) related to its interpretation of the MSPA. The main areas that may lead to this litigation might involve the additional mandatory insurer reporting requirement of the amount of the Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside as well as civil monetary penalty calculations. In addition, since workers compensation settlements have a great deal of agency guidance when it comes to post settlement injury related care, ie the Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (WCMSA) Reference Guide, and a Medicare Set-Aside review process, it wouldn’t be surprising to see challenges to CMS’ actions in this area. On the other hand, Liability MSA’s have only been addressed by two CMS memos and remain largely unregulated. The best course of action for liability settlements continues to be a case specific approach which includes a discussion with the Medicare beneficiary client about the potential impact of a Medicare denial of post settlement injury related care when a settlement includes an element of future medical. The consultation and supporting documentation provided by an MSP compliance expert will show that Medicare’s interests were reasonably addressed in the settlement.

It is important to keep in mind that although the Chevron doctrine has been overruled, agency interpretation will still be given a certain degree of respect or weight. Until a body of case law is developed in the area of MSP compliance, it is prudent to stay committed to resolving conditional payments, coordinating Section 111 mandatory insurer reporting and addressing Medicare’s potential interest in post settlement injury related care.

Synergy’s MSP compliance experts are here to help you navigate the complexities of the MSP Act and supporting regulations. Partner with Synergy to make sure your practice and your client are protected when it comes to the Medicare Secondary Payer Act.

Joseph Tunstall on TLV

Hello, Fellow Trial Lawyers!

In the latest episode of Trial Lawyer View, host Jason Lazarus engages with Joseph Tunstall from O’Malley Tunstall in a deep dive into cutting-edge strategies for modernizing law practices. Joe discusses the integration of new technologies to streamline operations and enhance client satisfaction. He also emphasizes the transformative impact of the Entrepreneurial Operating System (EOS) in optimizing law firm team efficiency and overcoming common pitfalls such as relinquishing control for better client outcomes. Don’t miss out on this episode packed with actionable insights and advice for trial lawyers looking to achieve greater efficiency in their practices and the best possible client outcomes.

Thanks for listening!

Jason D. Lazarus, Esq.

Philip Fairley on TLV

Hello, Fellow Trial Lawyers!

Don’t miss the latest episode of Trial Lawyer View as host Jason Lazarus sits down with Phillip Fairley from The Rainmaker Institute! Join us for an engaging conversation covering important business of law practice topics like:

Running a Law Firm: Explore the key aspects of running a law firm that can accelerate growth and success, transforming it into a thriving enterprise.

Efficiency and Profitability: Learn how to maximize efficiency and profitability by running a law firm as a business rather than just a legal practice, unlocking its full potential.

Client Acquisition and Retention Strategies: Discover effective strategies that small to mid-size personal injury law firms can implement to improve client acquisition and retention rates, driving business growth and success.

This is a not to be missed episode given the incredible insights provided by Phillip to managing a successful personal injury practice.

Thanks for listening!

Jason D. Lazarus, Esq.

CMS’ Data Driven Approach to MSP Compliance

Rasa Fumagalli, JD, MSCC, CMSP-F

It is well established that parties to a settlement involving a current Medicare beneficiary should consider Medicare’s potential interest in the settlement. This interest comes from the Medicare Secondary Payer (“MSP”) Act and supporting regulations which provide a framework for Medicare to recover conditional payments from settlements involving Medicare beneficiaries and to avoid making improper payments. The Act prohibits Medicare from making payments for services “to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably be expected to be made under any of the following: (i) workers’ compensation; (ii) liability insurance; (iii) no-fault insurance” (42 C.F.R. § 411.20; 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(A)).

Since Medicare is a secondary payer, parties should address pre-settlement injury-related conditional payments and take appropriate steps to avoid the appearance of a cost shift of future injury-related medical to Medicare in certain settlements. Coordinated Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting is beneficial whenever possible since this reporting serves to drive Medicare’s coordination of benefits. This enforcement mechanism began in January of 2011 and notifies Medicare of settlements involving Medicare beneficiaries.

Section 111 reporting is the responsibility of a Responsible Reporting Entity (RRE) to Medicare for liability, no-fault, and workers’ compensation plans and insurers. The RRE must report to Medicare if the plan has an Ongoing Responsibility for Medical (ORM) or if the Total Payment Obligation to the Claimant (TPOC) is greater than the reporting threshold of $750.00. Additionally, the RRE must query the Medicare system regularly to identify when a claimant becomes eligible for benefits while the claim is still open.

Under the Section 111 reporting requirements, the RRE must provide the injury victim’s first name, last name, date of birth, gender, Medicare Beneficiary Identifier (MBI), and Social Security Number (or the last five digits). Additionally, the RRE must report International Classification of Diseases (“ICD”) -10 diagnosis codes for the illnesses/injuries alleged, claimed or released in the Total Payment Obligation to Claimant (TPOC) settlement, judgment, award, or other payment. CMS encourages RREs to supply as many valid ICD-9/ICD-10 Diagnosis Codes as possible for the most accurate coordination of benefits. The TPOC report must also include the date and amount of the settlement.

Section 111 data collection plays a pivotal role in the enforcement of the MSP Act. An RRE’s or insurer’s reporting violations will subject them to civil money penalties as of October 11, 2024. CMS is also expanding their collection of Section 111 data in the area of workers’ compensation by adding a specific WCMSA data field. As of April 4, 2025, an RRE will now have to include the specific amount of the WCMSA, even if none is included, when reporting the Total Payment Obligation to Claimant (TPOC) data. The reporting requirement will apply to both CMS-approved and to non-submitted WCMSAs. This additional data will make it easier for CMS’ to deny post-settlement injury-related care. Although this additional reporting field only applies to workers’ compensation settlements, it is possible that this may be rolled out to liability settlements at some future date. Discussion of ways to make it even easier for Medicare Advantage Plans to access this information is also taking place behind the scenes.

A recent settlement agreement between MSP Recovery, Inc. d/b/a LifeWallet, and 28 property and casualty (“P&C”) insurers highlights the significance of data sharing when it comes to the preservation of the Medicare Trust Fund. By way of background, LifeWallet has been on a lengthy mission to discover Medicare Advantage liens and enforce primary payer obligations on behalf of their assignments from various Medicare Advantage Organizations. ( See Synergy’s 4/20/2023 blog for additional information the cases https://synergysettlements.com/would-better-billing-by-providers-result-in-fewer-msp-recovery-claims-cases/) A key settlement term reflects the P&C Insurers’ agreement to share the last 10 years of processed claims data and to share data of future claims with LifeWallet in order to assist LifeWallet in their claims reconciliation abilities. A confidential cash payment from the P & C Insurers to LifeWallet is also being made to settle existing claims.

So how does all this data collection impact the injured party and their attorney? When it comes to conditional payment demands, a failure to address them in a timely manner may result in significant consequences. There may be Department of Treasury collection efforts, suits for double damages as well as an offset of the injured party’s benefits. An attorney may also face a legal malpractice claim or attorney disciplinary proceedings. Similar consequences exist for failing to address a Medicare Advantage Plan lien which can be easily missed due to lack of transparency. Similar to conditional payments, there can be collection efforts by entities like LifeWallet, which also can be for double damages, against personal injury law firms.

A recent attorney disciplinary proceeding entitled Disciplinary Counsel v. Adams, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-559, considered an Ohio attorney’s failure to address conditional payments in the attorney’s permanent disbarment. The disciplinary counsel filed a four-count complaint against Attorney Adams alleging the neglect of three client matters among other things. The first count involved Adams’ improper handling of a Medicare lien in the amount of $3,969.75, failure to distribute the settlement proceeds to the client, and a failure to refile a UM/UIM case within the statute of limitations.

As a result of Adams’ mishandling of the Medicare lien, the Department of Treasury notified the client that her monthly Social Security benefit would be reduced by up to 15% to satisfy the outstanding Medicare lien. Although the client notified Adams of this, he continued to avoid this issue and took no action to resolve. Meanwhile, the Medicare lien continued to increase due to interest being added on. Adam’s client also filed a legal malpractice complaint that resulted in a default judgment against Adams with compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, plus court costs and prejudgment interest. In reviewing this count, the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court noted numerous ethical violations by Adams and ordered Adams to pay his client $12,971.74 in restitution. The Board further reviewed the three other counts and agreed with the initial hearing panel’s recommendation that Adams should be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.

Although Adams’ actions were extreme, plaintiffs’ attorneys do face risks when it comes to Medicare Secondary Payer compliance issues. CMS’ collection of settlement data not only allows Medicare to recover for conditional payments made prior to settlements, but it also enables them to decline payment of post-settlement injury-related care in certain liability settlement. This risk is one that should be discussed and addressed whenever an attorney is representing a Medicare beneficiary in a personal injury matter that includes an element of future medical.

Conclusion:

Medicare Secondary Payer compliance issues should never be ignored. A proactive approach that screens the Medicare status of each client should be undertaken and updated throughout the duration of representation. It is also imperative that conditional payments and Medicare Advantage liens be addressed in a timely way. Injured parties should be advised about the potential impact of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act on their post-settlement injury-related care and files properly documented. We also recommend that counsel on both sides work together to make sure that the RREs report accurate and consistent Section 111 data to Medicare.

Synergy’s team of MSP compliance experts is here to help you navigate the maze of Medicare. Our MSP 360 services include an MSP compliance audit service, Medicare Expert Case Evaluation (MECE) consultation, Medicare Set-Aside services, and conditional payment negotiations. Reach out to our team today here.

James Grant on TLV

Hello, Fellow Trial Lawyers!

In the latest episode of Trial Lawyer View, James Grant from Georgia Trial Attorneys joins host Jason Lazarus for a deep dive into the multifaceted world of legal practice and law firm management. With a wealth of experience, James shares invaluable insights on balancing the art of lawyering with the business aspects of running a successful firm. From discussing the importance of creating objective metrics and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for maximizing efficiency and profitability to navigating the challenges of scaling a business while ensuring personal growth aligns, James provides actionable advice for trial lawyers seeking to transform their practices into lean, efficient machines.

Thanks for listening!

Jason D. Lazarus, Esq.

Why Aren’t More Attorneys Utilizing the Fee Deferral Programs?

April 11, 2024

Childs v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 634 (1994), forms the legal basis for attorney fee deferral and outlined several benefits for attorneys who defer legal fees. The case involved an attorney who had deferred a portion of his contingency fees from representing clients in personal injury cases. The IRS challenged the attorney’s deferral arrangement, but ultimately the Tax Court ruled in favor of the attorney.

Over the past twenty years, the marketplace has expanded greatly. According to the Insurance Information Institute, in 2020, the total losses for liability insurance reached $202.9 billion (inclusive of personal injury, medical malpractice and wrongful death claims). Similarly, the fee deferral programs available have increased and now attorneys have a wide variety of options and investments available. However, the total amount of dollars that have been deferred by attorneys has stayed stagnant.

Why more attorneys defer taxation of their contingent legal fees? Great question when you look at the benefits of doing deferral. But there are important considerations and issues to make sure it is the right choice for a specific fee:

The benefits:

Tax Deferral: By deferring the receipt of income, one can potentially defer taxation in the current year, lower the overall payment of tax and have their fee grow tax-deferred until received.

Income Averaging: This can help attorneys manage their income and tax liability by spreading payments into more equal annual income to reduce the amount taxed at higher rates. It also allows the firm (business) to plan revenue out with more certainty.

Investment Opportunities: The investment options in a deferral program allow all the dollars to potentially earn interest or capital gains without taxation while they are held in the program.

Asset Protection: Depending on the structure of the deferral agreement, the deferred legal fee may be protected from creditors and other claims.

Retirement Planning: Most of the programs do not have deferral caps and integrate well with other traditional retirement planning strategies.

No lImit (amount or age): The benefits are like most retirement plans but do have the added advantage of no cap on the amount you can defer in a single year and allowable withdrawals prior to age 59.5. These are extremely valuable when used in conjunction with other retirement planning programs.

The downside:

Financial Constraints: Attorneys and firms often utilize their personal finances to fund their law firm’s investment in cases. They may prioritize paying down debt or saving for future cases.

Lack of Awareness: The programs available are not widely known in the Tax Attorney, CPA, or Financial Planner markets. These groups are who attorneys typically go to for guidance and advice in their planning. The programs are specific to attorneys working on contingency fees and unique to this profession.

Short-term Thinking: There is always a battle between using funds now and receiving instant gratification versus savings for the long term.

Fear and Uncertainty: Trial lawyers have income that varies from year to year, sometimes with huge swings up and down. This variance often creates a fear of not being able to access the funds in case of an emergency. In addition, many professionals fear the uncertainty of the economic environment and the performance of markets.

Access Limitation: The programs available have limits on the ability to access funds. You typically cannot increase the amount or frequency of the withdrawal schedule for immediate access.

Time: The programs available require decisions and documentation that is more complex than most retirement plans and becomes part of the settlement documentation. It may take a prospective attorney longer to understand and seek advice from their advisors. Typical plans need to be implemented and set in motion prior to a case coming to a resolution.

Conclusion

Like most retirement plans, attorney fee deferral programs have benefits and risks associated with implementation. If the program is used with other retirement plans, you can overcome many of the obstacles listed above. The benefits of deferring legal fees will vary based on the individual circumstances of the attorney and the terms of the program they utilize. Attorneys should consult with tax and financial professionals to review their specific situation and develop strategies that work best for their wants and needs. Attorney fee deferral programs do not work for everyone but should be considered as part of your overall financial strategy. See here how Synergy can assist today.