Introduction
What happens when a six-figure lump sum disappears within months, and a client returns, destitute, asking for help? Structured settlements were developed in part to prevent precisely these outcomes, but only if they are meaningfully considered at the time of resolution.
For plaintiff attorneys, structured settlements are not a niche financial product or a peripheral afterthought. They are a foreseeable issue that arises whenever a case resolves for a significant monetary recovery. Whether a recovery is paid entirely in cash, partially structured, or fully structured is not merely a financial decision, it is a strategic decision that can affect client stability, tax treatment, public benefit eligibility, and long-term risk management.
Over the past two decades, empirical research has consistently shown that most plaintiff attorneys are familiar with structured settlements. Yet the same research reveals a persistent gap between awareness and systematic implementation. Structured settlements are widely known, but inconsistently integrated into practice.
This article launches a focused educational series for plaintiff attorneys that builds on empirical findings and practical field experience. A separate Survey Series – currently underway on this blog, examines the broader evolution of structured settlements and settlement planning as a profession. Here, we narrow the lens: What do the surveys specifically reveal about plaintiff attorney behavior, and what practical lessons follow from those findings?
The purpose of this series is not to promote a product, but to strengthen professional process. By grounding the discussion in empirical research and attorney experience, we aim to clarify when and why structured settlements should enter the settlement conversation and how plaintiff counsel can approach them with confidence, clarity, and strategic discipline.
Before turning to ethics, negotiation strategy, or tax doctrine, and other important topics, we begin with a threshold question: What does the empirical record actually reveal about how plaintiff attorneys view and use structured settlements?
The Empirical Record: What the Surveys Reveal
Over the past twenty years, multiple surveys have examined how plaintiff attorneys view and use structured settlements. While each study differed in scope and methodology, the results are remarkably consistent.
The 2008 NSSTA-sponsored survey directed by Dr. Robert E. Hoyt at the University of Georgia was among the earliest systematic efforts to measure plaintiff attorney attitudes. It confirmed that structured settlements were widely recognized, but not uniformly understood. Many plaintiff attorneys expressed uncertainty about mechanics, applicability, and suitability beyond cases involving minors or catastrophic injury.
The 2014–2015 NSSTA–CLM Advisors project expanded the lens, examining communication dynamics among claims professionals, brokers, and plaintiff attorneys. Its findings emphasized the importance of trust, credibility, and clarity in determining whether structured settlements were seriously considered. Where relationships were strong and communication effective, usage increased; where communication gaps existed, engagement declined.
The 2021 Structured Settlements Poll of personal injury attorneys, conducted nationally, reinforced earlier themes. Ninety-four percent of respondents reported that they were somewhat or very familiar with structured settlements. Yet only approximately one-third reported that they “always” recommend them, while nearly half indicated that they recommend them only “sometimes.” At the same time, a substantial majority expressed concern about clients mismanaging lump-sum recoveries.
The disparity between high familiarity and less consistent recommendation is particularly revealing. It suggests that structured settlement decisions are often situational rather than systematic—driven by case type, opposing party initiative, or consultant involvement rather than by internal firm protocol. Awareness alone does not ensure integration.
More recent recipient-based research reinforces the practical consequences of this variability. A 2025 national study of personal injury settlement recipients sponsored by MetLife found that while 43% initially chose a full lump sum, only 15% would do so again in hindsight. Most respondents indicated that, given the opportunity to decide again, they would prefer a partial lump sum and partial structured settlement allocation. The same study reported that 70% of recipients worry about running out of money, and nearly half of lump sum recipients who made significant early purchases expressed regret.
Taken together, these findings do not reflect rejection of structured settlements. They suggest inconsistency in process.
Awareness is passive; integration is procedural. Awareness depends on individual familiarity; integration depends on timing, confidence, communication, and structured workflow.
As discussed more broadly in the ongoing Survey Series on this blog, the structured settlement profession has evolved from product advocacy to defined professional expectations. Within that evolution, the plaintiff attorney occupies a uniquely influential role. The surveys consistently show that when plaintiff counsel meaningfully engages the structured option early and confidently, utilization increases. When the option is introduced late, tentatively, or reactively, it often fades from consideration.
The empirical record therefore points to a professional question, not whether structured settlements are known, but whether they are systematically incorporated into the settlement process.
That question frames the remainder of this series.
Interpreting the Gap: Awareness vs. Integration
The empirical record reveals a consistent pattern: familiarity with structured settlements is high, but systematic implementation is uneven. This gap is not best explained by hostility toward structured settlements or ignorance of their basic features. Rather, it reflects variability in process.
In many firms, structured settlements are considered when the case profile makes them obvious – minors, catastrophic injury, or large recoveries. Outside of those contexts, however, consideration may depend on external triggers: whether a defense representative raises the option, whether a consultant is introduced, or whether a particular attorney within the firm has prior experience with structures.
This situational approach contrasts with a process-driven model in which structured settlements are evaluated as a standard component of settlement analysis whenever material future financial risk exists. The surveys suggest that while most plaintiff attorneys recognize the potential advantages of structured settlements, fewer have embedded that evaluation into a repeatable internal workflow.
Several systematic factors contribute to this variability.
First, timing matters. Structured settlement options are most effectively evaluated before tax consequences crystallize and before settlement terms are irrevocably fixed. When introduced late in the negotiation process, after numbers are agreed upon and expectations anchored, structured discussions often feel disruptive rather than strategic.
Second, explanation confidence plays a meaningful role. Survey responses repeatedly indicate that attorneys cite difficulty explaining structured settlements to clients as a barrier. Complexity, however, is often a function of presentation rather than substance. Without a disciplined framework for discussion, attorneys may hesitate to initiate a conversation they anticipate will require extended financial explanation.
Third, suitability misconceptions persist. Although the empirical record shows structured settlements can be effective across a broad range of cases, some attorneys continue to associate them primarily with minors or catastrophic injuries. This narrowing of perceived applicability limits consideration before analysis even begins.
Fourth, communication dynamics influence utilization. Where trust exists between plaintiff counsel and settlement consultants, structured options are more likely to be explored meaningfully. Where prior interactions have been inconsistent or transactional, engagement declines.
None of these factors reflect professional indifference. They reflect the absence of standardized integration.
Integration does not require that every case result in a structured settlement. It requires that structured options be evaluated intentionally and early enough to allow meaningful client choice. In that sense, the awareness gap identified in Section II is better understood as a systems gap.
Within that system, the plaintiff attorney occupies a central role. Plaintiff counsel controls when settlement discussions begin, how options are framed, what experts are introduced, and how recommendations are documented. Whether structured settlements are perceived as peripheral or integral depends largely on those early professional decisions.
The remainder of this series therefore focuses not on persuasion, but on process: how plaintiff attorneys can incorporate structured settlement evaluation into representation in a manner that is disciplined, ethically grounded, and strategically advantageous.
The Plaintiff Attorney as Gatekeeper: Control and Professional Judgment
Plaintiff counsel occupies a unique position in the settlement process -not merely as advocate, but as the primary decision architect at the point of resolution. The attorney determines how damages are framed, when settlement discussions mature, what outside professionals are consulted, and how options are ultimately presented to the client.
Because of this role, integration of structured settlement analysis is less about persuasion and more about professional discipline. If structured options are evaluated only after settlement terms are fixed or funds are imminent, meaningful analysis becomes compressed. When evaluation occurs earlier – while valuation remains fluid – structured settlements can be assessed alongside other strategic considerations rather than as a post-settlement adjustment.
This distinction has practical consequences. Early evaluation allows coordination with tax advisors, financial professionals, and settlement consultants where appropriate. It also strengthens documentation of informed client choice, an increasingly important consideration in a profession operating within heightened expectations of competence and communication.
Importantly, integration does not require that every case result in a structured settlement. It requires that structured options be addressed deliberately and documented appropriately. The client retains ultimate authority. But the attorney controls whether the client’s choice is informed by a complete and timely analysis.
In that sense, the systems gap identified earlier is not merely operational – it is professional.
Conclusion
Structured settlements have been embedded in federal tax law and personal injury practice for more than four decades. The empirical record does not reveal skepticism toward their legitimacy. It reveals variability in their integration.
The distinction is consequential. When consideration of structured settlements depends on circumstance rather than process, outcomes vary accordingly. When evaluation is systematic and timely, clients are positioned to make informed decisions aligned with long-term stability and risk management.
For plaintiff attorneys, the question is not whether structured settlements are appropriate in every case. It is whether their evaluation is incorporated early enough, and consistently enough, to constitute sound professional practice.
The articles that follow will explore this question from multiple perspectives – ethical, historical, practical, and strategic. Together, they aim to strengthen confidence, clarify responsibility, and promote disciplined integration of structured settlements within modern settlement planning.
Structured settlements are not simply a funding mechanism. They are one component of a broader professional process. How intentionally that process is designed remains within the control of plaintiff counsel.
By Patrick Hindert
This article represents the views of the author. Neither the author nor Independent Life Insurance Company provide tax, legal, or financial advice. The information contained herein is for general informational and educational purposes only and is not intended to serve as a substitute for
