And they’re off – but is your firm backing the right ATE provider?

Print This Post

17 March 2015


Posted by Steve Rowley, business development manager at Legal Futures Associate Allianz Legal Protection

Make sure you don't back a no-hoper

Make sure you don’t back a no-hoper

Last week’s Cheltenham Festival was the highlight of the jump season calendar and it got me thinking. If the horses running in the Gold Cup were in fact after-the-event insurance providers and all the punters in the stands were law firms, which ‘horse’ is the most likely to come out on top?

The Favourite – a thoroughbred whose expertise in the market provides firms and their customers with confidence that claim payments will, and can be met, without compromise or negotiation.

First out of the gate – a quick starter who is unable to last the course, quickly finding out that its pricing models are flawed.

Free Rein – the beast is allowed to run without any governance or controls in place.

A Non-Runner – They are on the race card but not actually in the race.

Blinkered – convinced that their race plan is a winner to the extent that they refuse to pay any attention to the needs of the customer.

Heavy going – soft muddy conditions which make it hard for the law firm to do business with their ATE provider, resulting in progress and claims payments being slow and/or constantly challenged.

Saddled – ATE providers who don’t control their own capital have additional heavy objects on their back by having to make a return for their underwriter, as well as themselves.

Spurred on – ATE providers who use any means possible to encourage firms to place business

As ATE providers and insurers all jockey for position to try and get themselves into an advantageous place in the field, it is important that law firms assess the odds and review the form before placing a bet with their hard earned money and reputation.



Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

All comments will be moderated before posting. Please see our Terms and Conditions

Legal Futures Blog

Rating lawyers by their wins and losses – a good idea?

Robert Ambrogi

Lawyers will give you any number of reasons why their win-loss rates in court are not accurate reflections of their legal skills. Yet a growing number of companies are evaluating lawyers by this standard – compiling and analysing lawyers’ litigation track records to help consumers and businesses make more-informed hiring decisions. The shortcomings of evaluating lawyers by win rates are many. Not least of them is that so few cases ever make it to a win or loss. Of equal concern is that, in the nuances of law practice, it is not always obvious what constitutes a win or a loss.

February 22nd, 2017