Either some Rhode Island divorce lawyers today still make a significant mistake about health insurance coverage laws or their clients misunderstand what has been explained to them.
Within the past month I have heard several clients tell me that they already expect to pay for their spouse's health insurance even though they don't want to because their spouse's lawyer has said to the spouse that the law requires them to.
If that was in any way unclear, an example goes something like this.
Darlene and Francis are getting divorced. Darlene is worried about having continued health insurance on her husband's health insurance policy after she is divorced from Francis.
Attorney Grange represents Darlene. Attorney Grange advises Darlene that the Rhode Island Insurance Continuation Act requires Francis to keep her on his health insurance and to keep paying for it at no cost to her. Darlene now feels safe that she will have continued health insurance even after her divorce from Francis is final.
What's the catch? Darlene's Rhode Island divorce attorney has given her incorrect legal advice.
Too many lawyers make this mistake in divorce proceedings.
Rhode Island's Insurance Continuation Act is not directed at the parties in the divorce. Rather, the Insurance Continuation Act (R.I. General Laws 27-20.4-1 et seq.) tells the health insurance carrier what it may or or may not do under certain circumstances and depending upon what is stated in the parties' judgment of divorce.
Rhode Island's Insurance Continuation Act doesn't tell Francis what he can or can't do at all. Nor does the Insurance Continuation Act guarantee Darlene that she will have health insurance coverage through her husband's health insurance plan after they are divorced.
Here is the section of the Insurance Continuation Act that Attorney Grange should have reviewed before advising his client on this important divorce issue.
§ 27-20.4-1. Continuation of health plan coverage for former spouse
(a) In the event of a final judgment of divorce, whether absolute or otherwise, where one party to the divorce was at the time of the entry of the judgment for divorce a member of a health plan providing family coverage regulated under chapters 18, 19, 20, or 20.1 of this title and § 42-62-13, or a member of a health maintenance organization as defined in § 42-62-4(5), or any similar health plan whether regulated under these chapters and sections or not, the person who was the spouse of the party prior to the entry of judgment for divorce may remain eligible for continuing benefits under the plan and health maintenance organization without additional premium or examination if the order is included in the judgment when entered. The eligibility shall continue as long as the original member is a participant in the plan or health maintenance organization and until either one of the following shall take place: (1) the remarriage of either party to the divorce, or (2) until a time as provided by the judgment for divorce. If the person who was the spouse of a member of a plan or health maintenance organization as set forth in this subsection becomes eligible to participate in a comparable plan or health maintenance organization through his or her own employment, the continuation of the original plan coverage shall cease. Any final decree continuing family health insurance shall require both the member and the spouse to notify the insurer promptly of any remarriage.
(b) The person who was the spouse and remains eligible for continuing benefits under the provisions of this section or any custodial guardian of an insured minor child of the original member, having paid for covered medical costs subject to reimbursement, shall be reimbursed directly by the insurer upon the filing of the claim. The insurer shall not require that the claim be filed through the insured member, but must allow for direct filing.
Continued health insurance between spouses still is an aspect of the divorce that must be negotiated between the parties. In some exceptional cases, some federal laws may provide that the ex-spouse may not be covered at all once the final judgment of divorce enters. However, in most cases the insurance coverage is still something that has to be worked out.
The final judgment of divorce might state that Darlene could remain on Francis' insurance at no cost to her as part of their Marital Settlement Agreement until the Final Judgment of Divorce enters.
It is also possible that the parties agree that Darlene may continue on the health insurance indefinitely (or as long as allowed by the insurance carrier) as long as she pays the difference in cost between the individual plan for Francis and the cost of the family plan so that Darlene will have continue to be covered.
There are any number of different types of agreements that might be reached between spouses regarding the Health Insurance Coverage after the divorce depending upon the circumstances.
However, there is no law in Rhode Island that requires the member subscriber to continue your coverage at his or her cost. If you hear this from your divorce attorney, you may want to have him or her show you the law that states this.
Remember, attorneys are present because every case is based upon the facts. All cases are fact specific and most legal advice given by your attorney will relate specifically to the facts of your case and arguments that could be made on your behalf. However, mandatory coverage by the spouse carrying the health insurance so the other spouse is guaranteed continued health insurance coverage is not currently a requirement in the Rhode Island General Laws as of the final session of the General Assembly in 2010 as codified.
If your divorce attorney insists that Rhode Island law guarantees you continued health insurance without reaching an agreement with your spouse that he or she agrees to provide continued health insurance to you at no additional cost, my suggestion is to get a second opinion or require your divorce lawyer to show you exactly where the law requires it.
This article was written March 31, 2011.
Authored By:
Christopher A. Pearsall, Attorney-at-Law
Rhode Island's Full-Time Divorce* Lawyer is Now
Rhode Island's Only Divorce and Family Law Coach!!
Discover the Tremendous Benefits You Receive by
Participating in Family Law Coaching Sessions!
Visit the RhodeIslandDivorceCoach.com
Call (401) 632-6976 Now
to
Schedule Your Low-Cost Rhode Island Divorce* or Family Law* Coaching Session!
Experience the Difference!
Copyright 2000 to Present. Christopher A. Pearsall, Esquire
Offering Rhode Island Rhode Island Divorce and Family Law Coaching for a New Millenium!
* The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all attorneys in the general practice of law. The court does not license or certify any lawyer as an expert or specialist in any particular field of practice.
- - Recommended Websites - -
Pearsall.net | AttorneyPearsall.com | Rhode Island Divorce Tips | ChristopherPearsall.com | GuaranteedWealth.com | Rhode Island Divorce Attorney | Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer | ChrisPearsall.com | LegalScholar.com | Pearsall-Law-Associates.com | Rhode Island Divorce Attorneys | Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers | Rhode Island Divorce Coach | RI Divorce Coach | RI Divorce Lawyer on Twitter | Rhode Island Divorce Coach on Twitter | Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer on Facebook.com| Attorney Chris Pearsall at LawGuru.com | Rhode Island Family Law Lawyer - RI Consumer Tips
Is the Lawyer Advertising Tasteless or Innovative with Today's Economic Times?
by John Browning on Mon, Oct 10, 2011, 10:57 AM
It’s no secret that in this depressed economy many lines of work have taken a beating. The legal profession is certainly one of them. Recent law school graduates are having a tougher time than ever finding jobs in their chosen field. In June 2011 alone, the legal sector had lost 2,600 jobs. Because of this, competition for legal work is becoming more and more intense, leading many lawyers to explore even more creative ways to market themselves.
Of course, there’s “creative,” and then there’s unusual and sometimes downright tacky. In the United Kingdom, the matrimonial lawyers at Follett Stock Solicitors have drawn the ire of local religious leaders for advertising (for a limited time only) free divorces. The offer, made via the firm’s website, Twitter, and in a flyer, doesn’t include court costs or extras like tracking down an estranged spouse. Clergymen maintain that the free offer encourages couples to make a hasty decision about splitting; the law firm counters that it’s just good advertising and a public service for those who want to divorce but can’t afford the legal fees. Over here in the U.S., Portland, Oregon personal injury firm Berkshire Ginsberg has nothing to hide—literally. In June, the firm sponsored the popular annual World Naked Bike Ride event, which was expected to draw as many as 20,000 au naturel cyclists. Firm partner Mark Ginsberg is an avid cyclist, and he saw sponsorship as a way to promote his firm’s representation of the vulnerable. The tagline associated with the lawyers’ support of the ride read “When you’re naked, we’ve got you covered.”
For a lot of lawyers, hitting the books in school meant entry into a world where they wouldn’t have to do jobs like deliver pizza. Now a new company founded by non-lawyer Chris Miles promises legal help as quickly as—well, a pizza. LawyerUp, which operates in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, offers subscribers (who pay $4.95 a month) access to a lawyer within 15 minutes of a legal emergency. LawyerUp gets paid $100 for the first call (for nonsubscribers), and the attorneys earn up to $250 for the first hour of work (they have to be agreeable to taking late night calls). Chris Miles rationalizes the service by saying “If I want a pizza, I can get a pizza in 15 minutes. . . . Why can’t I get a lawyer?” Connecticut Bar Association President Ralph Monaco called the company’s name “so tasteless.”
For other lawyers, it’s all about the ads themselves. Ontario trial lawyers at Sanders, Lyn & Ragonetti advertise their divorce practice with a photo of a sports car bearing the license plate “WAS HIS” (I guess they represented the wife). Philadelphia lawyer Larry Leftkowitz seeks to associate himself with trustworthiness with an ad in which his head is Photoshopped onto Abraham Lincoln’s body. Maybe he specializes in rail-splitting, or emancipations. Meanwhile, Tulsa trial lawyer Bryce A. Hill has his firm’s ad prominently featured on a race car for NASCAR fans everywhere. Yes, nothing says “classy” quite like having a law firm name and “TulsaTrialLawyer.com” right above the Confederate flag and a Jack Daniels logo.
Some law firms go with a musical approach. New York personal injury firm Greenstein & Milbauer opted for a rap song; some of the lyrics include “Have a neck broke/from an accident
you didn’t provoke?” The Los Angeles-based entertainment law firm of White O’Connor, on the other hand, uploaded a YouTube video with a lawyer in a suit singing a reggae song about their practice.
Other attorneys take a more personal approach. Peruse the website of the law firm of Mahoney Anderson LLC in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, and you find out more than you cared to know about attorney David M. Anderson. For example, Anderson boasts that before marrying a “former International Fashion Model and Miss Minnesota World,” he “dated women who went on to positions on the Federal Bench and National Anchor spots on FOX News.” Seriously? This guy thinks who he’s dated should somehow make a prospective client want to hire him? If this isn’t enough to make you think Anderson is a colossal tool, then consider his online business card, which notes that “Tri-lingual and an accomplished Jazz Pianist and 3-time Marathon Finisher, David continues to wonder in awe at his endowment of excessive gifts and talents, when so many others have been apparently deprived of any.” Hopefully, he meant this to be taken tongue in cheek, or else make sure there’s enough room in his conference room for you, Anderson, and Anderson’s ego.
Maybe Anderson was inspired by Baltimore, Maryland attorney Barry Glazer, whose Facebook page boasts “Every once in a while, a man emerges to lead the masses to greatness. With his cunning intelligence, impressively dyed blonde hair, and great catchphrases, Barry Glazer has become not only a law hero in Baltimore, but also an Icon throughout Maryland.” Really? Maybe the “great catchphrases” aspect is true; Glazer is known for his commercials, a number of which can be found on YouTube, and many of which have something to do with urine. In one ad, he refers to himself as “Legal advocate for the injured, disabled, and urinated upon;” in another, he admonishes insurance companies to not “urinate on my leg and tell me it’s raining.” He even comments on the BP oil spill with the tagline “BP’eed on lately” and his website features a “Don’t Pee on Me” tab.
I guess there’s a reason why, when you think of “classy,” lawyer ads don’t exactly spring to mind.
Posted on Dallas Blog
Lawyers ads have been controversial for some time. For the longest time lawyers as a profession weren't allowed to advertise or their advertising was substantially curtailed by Professional Codes of Conduct leaving lawyers with very limited means of "advertising" their legal services other than their signs at the roadside, business cards to those who asked, and word of mouth.
Some would call various forms of legal advertising "Tasteless" as the article explicitly states. However, might it be seen as innovative and progressive in a time when there is an abundance of lawyers yet an economic downturn? If lawyers were to offer "free divorces in Rhode Island" for a limited time to help many people who couldn't otherwise afford a lawyer, would the local clergy take the same position? Is offering a free service actually encouraging divorce?
If you had a business service offering professional wedding planning, professional internet marketing, or professional architecture services to the public and you were told how you could and could not advertise, what might your response be?
Whose opinion of what is professional advertising/marketing should govern your advertising? Yours or the public's? It is an interesting topic for discussion. How would you weigh in on lawyer advertising if you had a professional service of your own?
Posted by Attorney Christopher A. Pearsall on October 11, 2011 at 08:58 AM in News - Lawyers Advertising, Rhode Island Commentary & Debate, RI Divorce Attorney & FAQs, RI Divorce Attorneys & Advertising, RI Divorce Attorneys & Philosophies, RI Divorce Attorneys & Practice Approaches | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Technorati Tags: advertisements ri attorneys, attorney advertising, lawyers marketing, marketing ri lawyers, rhode island attorney advertising, rhode islands lawyers advertising, ri attorney ads, ri lawyer ads
Digg This | Save to del.icio.us