Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?s=Good+Advice%2C+Better+Advice
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 07:58:14+00:00

Document:
You are here: Home / Search for "Good Advice, Better Advice"
Briefs are too long. Some cases warrant lengthy briefing. Most do not. Shorter briefs are more than judicial preference. Brevity strengthens your writing, clarifies your points, and pleases your audience.
A rarely addressed problem is citing too much authority. When proofreading, many attorneys check a citation’s format and confirm it supports a proposition. But few assess whether to cut the citation or replace it with a better one.
Citations are about judgment. Consider these points.
Parties cannot waive the defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006); Wisconsin Dep’t of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 382 (1998); Lightfoot v. U.S., 564 F.3d 625, 627 (3d Cir. 2009); American Fiber & Finishing, Inc. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 362 F.3d 136, 138 (1st Cir. 2004); Gardner v. U.S., 211 F.3d 1305, 1310 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Douglas v. E.G. Baldwin & Associates, Inc., 150 F.3d 604, 608 (6th Cir. 1998); Harris v. U.S., 149 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 1998); Chernin v. U.S., 149 F.3d 805, 812-13 (8th Cir. 1998).
Then the presenter condemns string citations for two to three minutes, with a verbal footnote that they are acceptable in rare circumstances like to survey multiple jurisdictions or to show a trend (or consistency) over time.
This advice is not wrong, but it can lead to wrong conclusions.
Astute attorneys hear the advice, return to the office, and dutifully apply it. They scan briefs for precisely what the presenter mentioned: a paragraph with a single sentence followed by a horde of citations spanning multiple lines. If they find a string citation, they cut it down or determine an exception applies. If they find no string citation, hurray! Either way, in the end the attorneys feel confident the number of citations used to support all the propositions is fine because there are no unhelpful string citations. That conclusion is a problem.
Worse, that conclusion misunderstands the problem. The CLE advice frames the problem as string citations. But the absence of unhelpful string citations only means there are no unhelpful string citations. It does not mean the number of citations is acceptable.
The problem is attorneys cite too much authority. Whether that authority appears in a string citation is irrelevant. After all, when does a series of citations become a string citation? After two? Three? Four? Do you restart the count after a new signal word? I do not know and I do not care because it does not matter. You must justify every citation, whether solitary or in a series.
Cutting one string citation from a brief fixes one spot and shortens your brief by a handful of lines. But editing all of your citations improves dozens of sections and can shed pages.
Shed your collegiate habits. Briefs are not a way to show how much research you did, or how smart you are. I understand the hours you spent researching the intricacies of replevin were tiring and frustrating. I understand how few people have the command of replevin you now possess. And I understand that this hard won mastery of replevin should go towards something. Fine, but not your brief.
Your brief has one goal: persuade your audience. If a citation does not help this goal, cut it. Have a reason for every citation you include. Tie that reason to how the citation persuades your audience.
Not using every citation is counterintuitive. If you have the space you want to use every arrow in your quiver. But too much authority weakens a brief. Citations add length which means more time for your audience to lose focus and patience. You may lose credibility as your audience wonders why the brief is citing unnecessary authority. Too much authority also drowns substance in waves of citations.
A party must file an action for negligence within two years after the cause of action accrues. Section 13-80-102(1)(a), C.R.S. 2017; Colburn v. Kopit, 59 P.3d 295, 296 (Colo. App. 2002).
One proposition, two citations. Why cite two sources? Both are direct citations, meaning there is no signal (e.g. “see also”). The absence of a signal tells the reader the citations directly support the entire proposition. If they both support the entire proposition, you do not need two sources.
Choose one. If the General Assembly chooses a statute of limitations, it codifies this selection in statutes. These statutes bind courts. Here, the statute is clear. When Colburn states the statute of limitations, it is paraphrasing but not interpreting the statute. So the case adds nothing you do not get from the statute. The statute is the strongest authority. It is clear. Cut the case cite.
Courts dismiss negligence claims raised after the two year statute of limitations expires. Section 13-80-102(1)(a), C.R.S. 2017; Colburn v. Kopit, 59 P.3d 295, 296 (Colo. App. 2002).
Again one proposition, two citations. But the proposition is different. It speaks about the remedy courts apply to a tardy claim. The statute does not discuss (although perhaps it implies) the remedy. The case cites the statute, states the statute of limitations, and shows the remedy. It covers all the propositions you need.
Whether to also cite the statute is a judgment call. Although the case is probably sufficient, the statutory citation may help if a court wants to check for amendments or ensure Colburn correctly interprets the statute. This is a strategic decision and may depend on what your opponent contests.
A plaintiff may only succeed on a claim of denial of procedural due process if a state government injured or revoked a constitutionally protected property interest without proper procedural protections. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1; Schanzenbach v. Town of La Barge, 706 F.3d 1277, 1283-84 (10th Cir. 2013).
Only the case citation is necessary. The constitutional citation adds nothing. Case law, not the Constitution, establishes the contours of procedural due process. Unless your argument hinges on a textual analysis of the Due Process Clause (unlikely), there is no need to cite the clause.
The Due Process Clause prohibits state governments from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1. See also Schanzenbach v. Town of La Barge, 706 F.3d 1277, 1283-84 (10th Cir. 2013).
The citation to the Fourteenth Amendment without any signal tells the reader the Amendment directly states the proposition. The use of “see also” tells the reader the case supports the proposition, but does not directly state it. But a reader cannot tell why the case citation exists. It might add something; it might not. If you have a direct citation followed by a signal word with more authority, you will usually need to state why you included that new authority. Here, either add a parenthetical or cut the case citation.
A complaint must state with particularity the circumstances of a fraud. F.R.C.P. 9(b). Courts dismiss claims that fail to meet this heightened pleading standard. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Bar-S Food Co., 539 F. Supp. 710, 720 (D. Colo. 1982). This requirement protects defendants’ reputations and puts them on notice so they can form a defense. Tatten v. Bank of Am. Corp., 912 F. Supp. 2d 1032, 1041 (D. Colo. 2012). Conclusory allegations are insufficient; the complaint must allege the time, place, and contents of the false representation. Conrad v. The Educ. Res. Inst., 652 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1182-83 (D. Colo. 2009). The failure to identify the party who made the false statements requires dismissal. Id.
Five citations from four sources. This paragraph explains the general law on pleading fraud. A trial court is probably already familiar with these propositions and does not need a full backstory. Even so, surely one case supports all of these propositions. Do not cite five different sources when one suffices.
Showing several courts have dismissed complaints that plead fraud adds little. After all, what if the other side could cite more cases where courts did not dismiss such complaints? This is a fact-specific analysis. What matters is how the law applies to the complaint in your case. If the complaint’s allegations are close to a case you found, great. If not, more cases will not make a difference.
The ideal authority is one case that supports all these propositions and dismisses a complaint with the most analogous allegations to your case. Next best is one case that supports all these propositions and dismisses a complaint for the reason you advocate (e.g. not identifying who made the false statements) even though the allegations are very different.
If the answer to “Why is this citation here?” is “Because it supports the proposition” then you have not thought it through. This answer explains why you have a citation (as opposed to no citation). But it does not answer why you included this citation. Consider the same question rephrased: of the universe of all authority that supports the proposition, why have you chosen this one?
Step 1: Choose the Appropriate Type of Authority. Often multiple authorities lend support: constitutions, statutes, regulations, case law, legislative history, treatises, dictionaries, articles, etc. Have a reason why you chose one type of authority over another. Why cite a statute and not a case? Why a case and not a treatise?
It is the most recent high court decision which makes it the most authoritative case law on point.
It is the seminal case that all the other cases cite.
We rely heavily on this case later in the brief so it will make the court’s life easier by having fewer cases to examine.
No one answer is better than the other and this list is not exhaustive. Attorneys may differ. Bottom line: have a reason for everything you do.
 “With the docket the way it is—and growing (federal court appellate filings went up again last year)—we judges can only read briefs once. We cannot go back and re-read them, linger over phrases, chew on meanings. Your main points have to stick with us on first contact—the shorter and punchier the brief the better.” Patricia Wald, 19 Tips from 19 Years on the Appellate Bench, 1 J. App. Prac. & Process 7, 10 (1999). See also Judge William Eich, Writing The Persuasive Brief, Wisconsin Lawyer (Feb. 2003), available at http://www.wisbar.org/newspublications/wisconsinlawyer/pages/article.aspx?Volume=76&Issue=2&ArticleID=614 (estimating judges may only spend thirty minutes on the first reading of a brief).
 “Repetition, extraneous facts, over-long arguments (by the 20th page, we are muttering to ourselves, ‘I get it, I get it. No more for God’s sake’) still occur more often than capable counsel should tolerate. In our court counsel get extra points for briefs they bring in under the 50-page limit. Many judges look first to see how long a document is before reading a word. If it is long, they automatically read fast; if short, they read slower. Figure out yourself which is better for your case.” Wald, 1 J. App. Prac. & Process at 9-10.
 “You do not write for publication. You do not write to show your colleagues how smart you are, how well you know the subject matter, or how stupid you believe the judges to be. All this may well be true. But the name of the game is ‘persuade the judge.’ You don’t score points for anything else.” Ruggero J. Aldisert, Winning on Appeal: Better Briefs and Oral Argument, 24 (National Institute of Trial Advocacy, 2d ed. 2003). “You’re not writing a treatise, a law-review article, or a comprehensive Corpus Juris annotation. You are trying to persuade one court in one jurisdiction. And what you’re trying to persuade it of is not your (or your junior associate’s) skill and tenacity at legal research. You will win no points, therefore, for digging out and including in your brief every relevant case. On the contrary, the glut of authority will only be distracting. What counts is not how many authorities you cite, but how well you use them.” Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges 125-26 (2008).
 “Conciseness doesn’t mean fewer words; it is the omission of needless words.” Eich, supra n. 1.
 “A brief that is readable and to-the-point will make it much easier for the judges to understand and quickly grasp your points, and they will be encouraged to spend more time with your arguments. Unnecessary length, on the other hand, will often result in your strongest points getting lost in the shuffle.” Eich, supra n. 1.
 “As for governing authority, if the point you are making is relevant to your reasoning but is neither controversial nor likely to be controverted, a single citation (the more recent the better) will suffice. Anything more is just showing off to an unappreciative audience.” Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges 126 (2008).
Denver voters have the opportunity to make Denver a healthier place to live, stabilize working families, make businesses more productive, and strengthen the local economy by supporting Initiative 300. This measure will allow all workers employed in Denver to earn paid sick days to care for themselves or a family member when sick without jeopardizing their financial security.
Paid sick days will make Denver a healthier place to live and work.
There are 107,000 lower-wage workers in Denver who don’t have access to paid sick days – most have lots of interaction with the public at their jobs in restaurants, childcare centers, and nursing homes – and that puts everyone’s health at risk. When they’re sick, they have to choose whether to go to work sick and risk spreading contagion or struggle paying the bills at the end of the month. Especially in this tough economy, that’s a choice no one can afford to make.
Three out of four restaurant workers in Denver have no paid sick days and face this decision every time they get sick. Laura, a Denver coffeeshop barista, knows she shouldn’t have reported to work with a severe cold last winter, but she did anyway to pay that month’s rent. And Laura isn’t alone. A national survey of restaurant workers found that nearly two-thirds have cooked or served food while sick, and that’s unhealthy for them and their co-workers – and you, their customers.
When workers are able to earn paid sick days, it makes a healthier community for all of us to live in. That’s why more than 160 Colorado public health groups, faith leaders, community organizations, labor groups, elected officials, and businesses are asking Denver voters to support Initiative 300.
Paid sick days make working families more secure.
Workers can take care of themselves, get preventive care, and help their children and other family members recuperate when they’re sick. With paid sick days, workers don’t have to choose between being good employees and good parents.
Stronger, more secure families mean better schools for our children. Parents with paid sick days are less likely to send a sick child to school. When their parents are able to care for them at home, sick children get well sooner and reduce the risk of spreading illness to their classmates and teachers. And they do better in school.
Paid sick days are good for businesses.
Businesses benefit because paid sick days decrease the spread of illness in the workplace, increase worker productivity, and protect customers, far outweighing the modest cost of implementing the policy. In fact, paid sick days will save Denver businesses nearly $600 per year for each full-time worker by improving productivity and reducing turnover.
Paid sick days strengthen the economy by helping workers keep their jobs.
Economists say that job retention policies like paid sick days help reduce unemployment and strengthen the economy. In San Francisco, which adopted a similar paid sick days law in 2007, two in three businesses now support the law; six in seven report no negative impact on profitability – including the restaurant association which at first opposed the law. Since then, job growth in San Francisco has outpaced surrounding counties and the city was just named one of the top three in the world to do business.
Initiative 300 is easy to implement.
Business lobbyists have a long list of complaints about Initiative 300 – not one of which has been a problem in other cities with similar laws. Paid sick days laws have passed legal scrutiny and challenge, and have proven easy to implement, easy to track, and haven’t led to problems for employers.
Ordinance enforcement is in the Agency for Human Rights and Community Relations because it ALREADY has authority to conduct all aspects of enforcement – taking complaints, conducting investigations, holding hearings, providing conciliation, issuing orders, and imposing fines.
Municipal laws routinely apply to all businesses doing business within a city. Initiative 300EXCLUDES employees working less than 40 hours in Denver, those with just a casual connection to the city. This provision was added to protect business on the advice of those implementing San Francisco’s law, which also exempts workers with minimal contact with the city through regulation.
The commonplace 90-day non-retaliation protection ONLY applies to process, protecting those using legal remedies or cooperating with legal procedures.
Initiative 300 is clear that leave already provided by employers counts for purposes of the ordinance, as long as the leave is the same amount, and can be used for the same purposes.
State law already requires employers to offer unpaid leave for domestic violence reasons. Under Initiative 300, employees can use paid time they accrue to get safe, but the ordinance doesn’t add leave for those purposes.
Initiative 300, like San Francisco regulations and other paid sick days laws, allows employers to require documentation after absences of 3 days.
Initiative 300, like the San Francisco and most other paid sick days laws, allows employers and unions to do something different or opt out of the ordinance through collective bargaining.
Nothing in Initiative 300 prevents employers from requiring employees to call in when sick, disciplining bad employees, or allowing shift-swapping.
The benefits of paid sick days far outweigh the cost.
The modest city investment – estimated by independent analysts at $277,000 – to implement Initiative 300 is small compared to the costs of not having paid sick days, including public health costs of sick workers on the job, increased emergency room usage, increased public assistance costs, and educational costs.
Who wants workers to be forced to work sick and spread contagion while they’re cooking and serving our food in restaurants, and taking care of our children and grandparents in schools, child care centers, and nursing homes? Initiative 300 will make Denver a healthier city for all of us.
Linda Meric is the Denver-based Executive Director of 9to5, National Association of Working Women, a membership organization of low-wage women working to improve policy on workplace issues. 9to5 Colorado is one of the 160+ organizations in the Campaign for a Healthy Denver. Click here for more information.
October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Are you aware of whether domestic violence affects your clients?
You may be asking yourself, “Why should I be?” Let me endeavor to convince you.
I have witnessed the prevalence of domestic violence and have seen how it intersects with almost every practice area in the law. After laboring on the problem of domestic violence for twelve years, in both a legal advocacy and a public policy capacity, I still marvel at the complexity of the matter and the myriad of other issues with which it traverses. But, that is not just my own professional reality. Given that 1 in 4 women will experience domestic violence in her lifetime, and given that domestic violence impinges on people from all walks of life, chances are good that some of your clients are, or have been, in abusive relationships.
Shame, self-blame, fear, embarrassment, thinking it is irrelevant to the legal advice she is seeking, or not identifying herself as a victim of domestic violence – these are all very valid reasons why a survivor may not disclose abuse to you. Survivors have limited occasions within which to disclose abuse safely and confidentially. Telling an attorney whose communications with her are privileged is one such opening. If you don’t ask questions to uncover potential abuse, you may miss a significant opportunity to provide life-saving referrals to local community resources and to reinforce that the abuse is not her fault, not to mention enhance your legal representation.
For reasons of efficacious and ethical representation, and to avoid the “M” word (malpractice, of course), it is critical to know whether your client is a survivor, and to consider how the context of domestic violence impacts your legal strategizing and advice. A complete picture of the risks and an understanding of the needs arising from your client’s experience are necessary in order to best represent them and to avoid the unintentional harm that can result from uninformed representation.
Of equal importance are safety considerations: your client’s and yours. There are many steps you can take to help increase the safety of survivor clients who continue to be at risk and to manage your own potential risks. The first step is being aware of the domestic violence and whether your client’s physical safety is an ongoing concern. However, risk management and enhanced safety for survivors is far more complicated than seeking solutions to address physical safety alone. For example, without economic security there can be no safety for survivors. With an understanding of the financial risks a survivor client is facing, you are in a position to increase your client’s safety and personal agency by weaving economic justice tactics throughout your legal strategizing and representation.
This Domestic Violence Awareness Month I am advocating for several things. Include domestic violence screening as a standard part of your intake process. Take the time to become familiar with local resources. Learn how to safety plan with your client and for yourself. And become aware of available legal remedies to domestic violence. All are essential for follow-up when domestic violence is disclosed. The tools to get you started are out there, such as this one from the American Bar Association’s Commission on Domestic Violence.
So, I ask you: Why not take action this October (and beyond)?
Amy Miller is the Public Policy Director at the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Visit their website for further information and resources or join the discussion on their Facebook page. Amy can be reached at amiller@ccadv.org.
So it was the summer of 1983 and I had reached that particular stage of adolescence when your parents have finally managed, after a long succession of hints, to get across the idea that this would be a good time to secure gainful summer employment.
Off I went to the local employment office to check out the job board. It turned out that when you’re 15 years old, there’s not a whole lot you’re qualified to do (which always comes as a mild surprise to the burgeoning teenage ego). However, for people of my age and utter lack of qualifications, there was the “Odd Job Squad,” which allowed you to paint fences or rake leaves or do some other task where you couldn’t break anything that couldn’t be inexpensively replaced. In my case, that turned out to be mowing lawns.
So I signed up and was sent out to my first client: an aging couple living in a tidy bungalow that was probably once at the edge of town, but was now thoroughly suburban.
The couple had one of those push mowers that ran solely on the user’s effort. After a solid 45 minutes of serious labor (during which I mistakenly ripped out and threw away what I later realized was a series of tulip bulbs), I knocked on the door to receive payment.
The older gentleman at the door asked me, “How much is that?” and I realized with a sudden shock of apprehension that I had no idea. No one at the employment office had suggested rates or fees, and what did I know about the market for mowing lawns?
I don’t think I’ve ever received better advice about pricing than that. The seller’s job is to know how much his or her services are worth, and the buyer’s job is to decide, after as much or as little negotiation as desired, whether that price matches the value of the service to the buyer.
I’ve used that approach when setting professional fees, too, where I’m the seller and the potential client is the buyer, when they ask, “What do you charge for a speaking engagement?” I say that price is what I set after finding out every last detail of what the engagement would require, and if that price is too high, then we can negotiate some of the details. But I know what my work is worth. So what I don’t do is quote a price and then say, “Is that Okay?” because then I’m letting the buyer help determine the price, and that’s not going to end well for me.
Know what your time and effort and experience and ingenuity are worth before you think about setting price. If you want to negotiate that price up or down depending on the conversation with the buyer, that’s fine, because price is ultimately a conversation about value and opportunity between buyer and seller and it rarely ends up at the same destination twice.
But remember that you enter that conversation with a responsibility to know what you’re worth. If you let the buyer decide that, you will always end up underselling your services. Or almost always.
“Five dollars?” I hazarded, and he opened his wallet, pulled out a five and thanked me for my work. If I could go back and find him now, I’d thank him for giving me far more that day than I returned in kind. Not just for the advice, but also because I really wasn’t very good at mowing lawns, and five bucks was generous.
As a partner with Edge International, Jordan Furlong delivers dynamic and thought-provoking presentations to law firms and legal organizations throughout North America. He also helps law firms that want a stronger online presence through blogs and social media with content, messaging and strategy as a Senior Consultant with Stem Legal. He writes the award-winning blog Law21: Dispatches from a Legal Profession on the Brink and can be reached at jordan@law21.ca. Jordan also contributes to the Attorney at Work blog, where this post originally appeared on August 22, 2011.
Happy Summer everyone! This blog post features a rebuttal from the LTC Forum of Colorado, Inc., in response to a news story on 9News KUSA claiming that long-term care insurance is no longer a valid option for the middle class. The fact is that traditional LTC insurance is best-suited for the middle class!
The 9News story also ignores some of the newest solutions on the market, including life insurance that allows the death benefit to be used for care and hybrid life or annuity policies. Watch for more information on these solutions in my next blog or visit www.AaronEisenach.com for videos explaining these solutions. I can be reached at (303) 659-0755.
On June 12, 2018, 9News KUSA aired a story, “The Death of Long Term Care for the Middle Income Earners,” full of dangerous advice that may lead Coloradoans to costly conclusions based on myths and misunderstandings. The LTC Forum of Colorado, Inc., a non-profit advocacy group that supports and encourages long-term care planning in Colorado, is responding to claims in the story and wishes to set the record straight.
Claim: Middle income earners (those who earn $87,500 per year) have been priced out of the long-term care market. Average premiums are $6,000 per year, which may be the low end.
Fact: The annual premium for coverage from the best-selling company in the United States for a 60-year old single female is $3,273.17 per year. A single male would pay $2,005.51 per year. Assumptions include a $5,000 monthly benefit, a 3-year benefit period, a $180,000 maximum benefit, a 90-day elimination period (similar to a deductible), preferred health rates, and a 3% compound annual inflation protection rider. Note that the inflation rider causes the monthly benefit and the $180,000 maximum benefit to grow each year by 3% of the previous years’ amount. The result is that by age 84, the monthly benefit will provide approximately $10,000 per month for care at home, in an assisted living facility or a nursing home, and the maximum benefit is worth approximately $360,000.
Claim: Premiums could go as high as $9,000 per year because insurance companies are telling current owners they could face a 50% hike at any point just because no one knows where healthcare is going.
Fact: Premiums cannot simply go up at any point. The Commissioner of the Colorado Division of Insurance has the responsibility of approving, denying, or modifying requested increases. Premiums cannot increase due to any one individual’s age, change in health, or due to use of the policy. Premiums can change if the insurance company makes the same change for all person of the same class.
True, long-term care insurance companies have increased premiums on policies sold in the past, mainly due to increasing longevity, low policy lapse rates, and historically low interest rates. To put this into perspective, let’s assume someone purchased a policy 15 years ago, in 2003, for $150 per month and that the premium has doubled to $300 per month. This is still affordable for folks making $87,500 per year. And this is a far cry from the claim that policies are increasing to $9,000 per year, which is equivalent to $750 per month.
In addition, companies offering LTC insurance policies today are including assumptions for low interest rates, very low policy lapse rates, and longevity. And because Colorado is one of more than 40 states that have adopted the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ LTC Insurance Rate Stability Regulation, Coloradoans have much more regulatory protection from the type of rate increases we have seen in the past.
CLAIM: No one knows where healthcare is going.
FACT: Surely everyone believes that healthcare costs will continue to escalate. However, long-term care costs do not increase nearly at the same rate as health insurance and medical expenses. LTC costs are largely driven by personnel costs and the cost of building brick and mortar facilities. The good news is that more people will stay at home for extended care, often at lower cost than being in a facility, by taking advantage of a growing number of home care agencies and advancing technologies such as robots and sensors.
Claim: Benefits no longer cover all daily expenses.
Fact: People purchasing LTC insurance today can purchase policies with benefits up to $500 per day or $15,000 per month. Because policies cost more today than in the past, it is now commonplace for consumers to design coverage to cover some, but not all, of the cost of care. For example, if an insured is receiving memory care in an assisted living facility at $7,000 per month, a policy with a $5,000 monthly benefit would cover more than 70% of the cost of care, leaving the policyowner $2,000 out-of-pocket, which is obviously better than $7,000 out-of-pocket. What’s more, a $5,000 monthly benefit would also cover more than five hours of home care every day for a month.
Claim: Many policyholders, because of financial decline or cognitive issues in their later years, let the policies lapse and then they lose everything – the future benefits they were paying for and then all the money they have put in over the years.
Fact: Regarding financial decline: First, only about 1% of LTC insurance policyholders let their policies lapse. This fact is one of the primary reasons premiums have increased. Fortunately, if an insurance company files and receives approval from Colorado Division of Insurance for a premium increase, policyowners are able to trim benefits in order to lessen a rate increase or avoid the increase altogether. This opportunity is explained to the policyowner so that he or she can make an informed decision.
For nearly two decades now, policies include a built-in Contingent Nonforfeiture Benefit, which allows clients to drop coverage if rate increases exceed pre-prescribed amounts. If coverage is let go, premiums paid over time will be used to pay for future long-term care expenses. In other words, the policy is converted into a paid-up policy.
[A] long-term care insurance policy or certificate shall include a provision that provides for reinstatement of coverage in the event of lapse if the insurer is provided proof that the policyholder or certificate holder was cognitively impaired or had a loss of functional capacity before the grace period contained in the policy expired. This option shall be available to the insured if requested within five (5) months after termination and shall allow for the collection of past due premiums, where appropriate. The standard of proof of cognitive impairment or loss of functional capacity shall not be more stringent than the benefit eligibility criteria on cognitive impairment or the loss of functional capacity contained in the policy and certificate.
Claim: A short-term care policy should suffice because most need care in a facility less than seven to nine months.
Fact: Claims data for 2014 from Genworth Financial, which has more LTC insurance policyholders than anyone in the industry, dispels the idea that policies covering up to nine months leaves a gaping hole in one’s plan for extended care. First, 50% of claims last more than one year, and of those lasting more than one year, the average length of claim lasts 3.9 years. Note also that 71% of claims started with home care; only 16% started in nursing homes. No doubt, long-term care insurance helps people stay at home where they want to be. Yes, the LTC Forum of Colorado, Inc., recommends short-term care insurance coverage to those not healthy enough to purchase LTC insurance or who cannot afford such a policy. But LTC insurance should be the choice for those who can qualify and afford $2,000 to $3,000 per year. In addition, only long-term care insurance can qualify policyowners for the Colorado Partnership Program which allows insureds to protect assets from Medicaid spend-down. For every dollar the Partnership policy pays for care, one dollar in assets is disregarded, allowing the middle class policyholder to leave assets to a spouse, partner, or children.
The story omits other attractive insurance-based planning solutions that are growing in popularity. For example, many life insurance companies now allow the death benefit provided by a life insurance policy to be used or “accelerated” for LTC services. Any remaining death benefit not used for care is paid to the beneficiaries. Premiums may be guaranteed, most offer cash surrender values if the insured cancels coverage, and some allow the monthly benefit received to be used for care from anyone such as family and friends.
Claim: The best solution is a reverse mortgage. No premiums, guaranteed income, and you don’t lose your home. If you are able to age in place at home, you have your house as your insurance policy and that’s the best route to go.
Fact: A home is not an insurance policy. While the LTC Forum endorses and recommends reverse mortgages, such a tool is not for everyone. First, the proceeds from a reverse mortgage may not provide enough income to cover the cost of extended care. Second, the common goal of keeping the house in the family may be compromised. Third, fees and other closing costs can be high. Lastly, if the home is no longer the primary residence for 12 months, such as needing care in a nursing home or assisted living facility, the loan comes due. Even with these concerns, a very good idea would be to use some of the proceeds to purchase long-term care insurance.
The Forum applauds programs like “Perfect Homecoming” through Lutheran Medical Center and the Senior Resource Center. Certainly, these caring people and institutions play a significant role in discharge, care coordination, meals, and other services. However, the Forum is concerned that Colorado consumers might be led to believe that such programs negate the need for long-term care insurance, or even short-term care insurance. The story simply left out the fact that the patient returning home still needs to pay for home health care services, which is the role of insurance. And if the patient cannot transition back to home and needs care in a facility, the patient and the family will either be thankful for having quality long-term care insurance in place or will desperately wish they had the coverage!
Simply put, needing long-term care is the greatest uninsured risk left in life – more than 50% of people who reach 65 are expected to need care someday. Without any coverage, the caregiver, usually a spouse or child, will often go through severe emotional and physical consequences. For most, the retirement plan and other savings will be depleted to pay for care instead of providing lifestyle and keeping continuing commitments to loved ones. The members of the LTC Forum of Colorado strongly believe that some coverage is better than no coverage!
We would very much welcome the opportunity to visit with 9News about the issues above and additional insurance-based solutions.
The Members of the LTC Forum of Colorado, Inc.
Aaron R. Eisenach has specialized in long-term care planning and insurance-based solutions for 20 years. His passion for this topic stems from losing both his father and grandfather to Alzheimer’s Disease. As an insurance wholesaler, Mr. Eisenach represents ICB, Inc., the nation’s first general agency specializing in LTC insurance. As an educator, he provides workshops to consumers and teaches state-mandated continuing education courses to Colorado insurance agents selling LTC products. As a broker, Mr. Eisenach is the proprietor of AaronEisenach.com and partners with financial advisors and agents who trust him to work with their clients. He is the immediate past president of the Producers Advisory Council at the Colorado Division of Insurance, serves as president of the nonprofit LTC Forum of Colorado, Inc, and has appeared on 9News and KMGH Channel 7. He recently served as an expert witness in a court case and was a contributing author to the American College curriculum on long-term care insurance.
US economic intellectuals raced to implement the ultra-individualist ideals of Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and other members of the Mont Pelerin Society…In doing so… they developed a metaphor — that every person should think of herself as a business, the CEO of Me, Inc. The metaphor took off, and has had profound implications for how workplaces are run, how people understand their jobs, and how they plan careers, which increasingly revolve around quitting.
The CEO of Me, Inc. is a job-quitter for a good reason — the business world has come to agree with Hayek that market value is the best measure of value. As a consequence, a career means a string of jobs at different companies. So workers respond in kind, thinking about how to shape their career in a world where you can expect so little from employers. In a society where market rules rule, the only way for an employee to know her value is to look for another job and, if she finds one, usually to quit.
The one trend that we see continue to stick is the importance of the personal brand over the law firm brand, and that means that every attorney should really focus on how they differentiate themselves from the pack, regardless of where they hang their shingle.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1
 v. 
 §1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.