The Executive Director role most PI firms are missing

The Executive Director seat at a personal injury firm is still being defined. Most plaintiff firms run on the traditional managing partner model, where the lawyer who loves trying cases ends up running HR, intake, and finance by default. Marina’s role exists because someone has to own the operational side so trial lawyers stay focused on the work they were hired to do.

“It’s even hard to admit you need help sometimes,” she said. The work starts with separating founder-level tasks from leadership tasks built around the business itself.

Hire ahead of the need

One of the biggest mistakes Marina sees in plaintiff firms is reactive hiring.

“You can’t wait until you need the paralegal to hire the paralegal. You have to have that paralegal training six months before.”

The fix is forward-looking workforce planning. Watch file counts. Watch phone volume. Train the next role before the gap becomes a fire.

The metrics worth tracking weekly

Marina sends a firmwide scorecard every week. No mysteries. No leadership-only data. Everyone sees the same numbers and rows in the same direction. The four she watches most closely:

1. Signed cases, split between marketing-sourced and referred
2. Complaints filed
3. Demands sent out
4. Resolution, both pre-lit and in litigation

Monthly, she tracks cost per case and average fee. About 30 percent of OG’s cases move into litigation, which explains a higher average fee and a deliberate choice to file cases.

Time on desk is where the money hides

If you want to find quiet revenue inside your firm, look at time on desk.

“If you cut a couple of months off the time on desk, you’re putting revenue in the previous year. You’re doing 14 months of revenue in 12 months.”

Lien resolution sits inside this problem. Cases stall while medical liens, Medicare obligations, and reductions get worked through. Clients wait. Five-star Google reviews die in the gap between settlement and check.

Intake is the most expensive operational leak

Ask Marina where plaintiff firms lose the most money, and she points straight at intake.

“One call could be a $5 million case.”

Her position: staff intake heavier than feels comfortable. Train constantly. Listen to the recordings. Coach the conversations. Intake feeds every other metric on the scorecard, because nothing moves without the signed case.

Culture as a hiring filter

Ostroff Godshall built core values and a social contract the partners stand behind. Those values drive interviews. Predictive Index assessments help match personality to role.

The lesson Marina learned the hard way: a high-performing hire who fails the culture test pulls the rest of the team down. Her rules are simple. Hire for traits. Train for skill.

The view from the operations seat

The competitive picture is shifting fast for plaintiff firms:

·         MSOs backed by private equity entering more markets

·         AI tools rewriting how cases get litigated

·         Marketing spend climbing in every major metro

·         Gen Z workforce expectations reshaping how teams operate

Marina’s response is to focus on what you control. For her firm, that looks like a client experience built on real human contact, with automations used to free up calls rather than replace them. Community presence matters too. Her firm gave away 1,000 backpacks last year and plans to give more this year.

“Grit” is one of OG’s core values, and Marina lives it

If she were building a personal injury firm tomorrow with a goal of 30 lawyers, her first three priorities would be:

·         Document every process so the founder’s knowledge lives outside their head

·         Lock down cybersecurity, secure phones, and secure email

·         Write an AI policy before the team starts using tools without guardrails

The takeaway for plaintiff firm leaders

Operations is the difference between a firm with great verdicts and a firm with a great business. Build the foundation, measure the numbers, protect the intake, and keep the human side of the work alive.

 Listen to the full podcast conversation here:

 Want more insights like this?

If you’re a personal injury lawyer ready to scale, streamline, and step into your role as CEO, let’s talk. Join the Peak Practice Community, and learn how synergy. can help you eliminate settlement bottlenecks, resolve complex liens, and maximize recoveries.  Learn more here: https://partnerwithsynergy.com/peak-practice/

If you want to grow and scale your law firm more effectively, consider partnering with Synergy for lien resolution.  Learn more at: https://partnerwithsynergy.com/liens/

When the Supreme Court decided US Airways v. McCutchen in 2013, recovery vendors declared victory. The Court held that ERISA plan language governs reimbursement rights, and equitable defenses cannot override clear contractual terms. 

Many attorneys took this to mean ERISA liens were now untouchable. Pay what the vendor demands or litigate. 

That’s wrong. 

McCutchen changed the landscape, but it didn’t eliminate opportunities for lien reduction. It simply requires a more sophisticated approach. You need to know where the vulnerabilities are, how to identify them in plan documents, and how to convert them into negotiating leverage. 

Here are the strategies that work. 

Strategy 1: Examine Plan Language for Ambiguities 

McCutchen said plan terms govern. But what happens when those terms are unclear? 

Under the doctrine of contra proferentem, ambiguities in a contract are construed against the drafter. For ERISA plans, that means ambiguous reimbursement or subrogation language can be interpreted in favor of the beneficiary. 

What to look for: 

• Undefined terms in reimbursement provisions 

• Conflicting language between the SPD and the Master Plan Document 

• Provisions that could be read multiple ways 

• Inconsistent use of “subrogation” versus “reimbursement” 

Even sophisticated plans drafted by major insurers and TPAs sometimes contain ambiguities. The question is whether you’re looking for them. 

Strategy 2: Verify Whether Equitable Doctrines Are Actually Disclaimed 

McCutchen held that equitable defenses can’t override plan language. But the Court also acknowledged that if the plan is silent on equitable principles, those principles may still apply. 

The made-whole doctrine: This equitable principle holds that the plan should only be reimbursed if and when the beneficiary has been fully compensated for all losses, including pain and suffering, lost wages, and future medical expenses. If the plan doesn’t explicitly disclaim this doctrine, you can argue it applies. 

The common fund doctrine: This principle requires the plan to share in the attorney’s fees and costs incurred in obtaining the settlement. The plan’s recovery should be reduced proportionally to account for the legal expenses that created the fund. Again, if the plan doesn’t explicitly waive this doctrine, it may apply. 

Key point: Recovery vendors often assert that McCutchen eliminates these defenses categorically. That’s not accurate. McCutchen said plan language controls. If the plan language doesn’t address these doctrines, they remain available. 

Strategy 3: Leverage 1024(b)(4) Non-Compliance Penalties 

This strategy is independent of McCutchen entirely. It creates leverage through a separate statutory mechanism. 

Under 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4), plan administrators must provide plan documents upon written request within 30 days. Failure to comply triggers discretionary penalties of up to $110 per day under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1)(B). 

Plan administrators frequently fail to respond on time. When they don’t, penalties accrue. We’ve seen cases where $15,000 to $25,000 in penalties accumulated before the vendor even engaged in substantive negotiations. 

Recovery vendors take this exposure seriously. A $50,000 lien becomes much more negotiable when there’s $20,000 in potential penalty exposure on the other side. 

Strategy 4: Understand and Apply the Montanile Case 

In 2016, the Supreme Court decided Montanile v. Board of Trustees, which established an important limitation on ERISA plan recovery. 

The Court held that an ERISA equitable lien by agreement attaches only to the specific fund identified in the plan, typically the settlement proceeds. If the participant dissipates those funds on nontraceable items before the plan files suit, the plan cannot recover from the participant’s general assets. 

The practical implication: timing matters. If settlement proceeds are spent on ordinary living expenses before the plan takes enforcement action, the plan’s remedy may be extinguished. 

Caveats: 

• This is a strategy of last resort, not a primary strategy 

• Plans can seek to trace funds or impose constructive trusts 

• Professional and ethical obligations must be considered 

• The facts of each case are critical 

Dealing with Recovery Vendors: Rawlings, Conduent, and Others 

In most ERISA lien matters, you’re negotiating with recovery vendors, not the plans themselves. Companies like Rawlings, Conduent, Trover, and others handle subrogation recovery for thousands of plans. 

These vendors are sophisticated. They know the law. They’re paid based on what they recover. They have every incentive to maximize reimbursement. 

How to negotiate effectively: 

• Know more than they expect you to. Most attorneys don’t obtain plan documents or analyze them carefully. When you demonstrate detailed knowledge of the plan language, vendors adjust their approach. 

• Document your leverage. Put your arguments in writing. Calculate 1024(b)(4) penalties precisely. Cite specific plan provisions and case law. 

• Be patient. Vendors often start with aggressive positions expecting quick capitulation. Firms that push back methodically often achieve significantly better results. 

• Escalate when appropriate. If a front-line representative isn’t authorized to negotiate meaningfully, request escalation to a supervisor with settlement authority. 

Putting It Together: A Framework for ERISA Lien Reduction 

Here’s the approach we use on every ERISA lien: 

1. Determine funding status. Self-funded or fully insured? This determines the applicable legal framework. 

1. Obtain plan documents via 1024(b)(4). Track compliance and document any penalties. 

1. Analyze plan language. Look for ambiguities, missing disclaimers, and weaknesses. 

1. Identify applicable defenses. Made whole, common fund, allocation, Montanile. 

1. Build your negotiating position. Document all leverage points. 

1. Negotiate strategically. Present your position in writing. Be prepared to push back and escalate. 

The Bottom Line 

McCutchen made ERISA lien reduction more challenging. It didn’t make it impossible. 

The firms that achieve the best outcomes are the ones that know where to look, understand the pressure points, and negotiate from a position of documented leverage. 

At Synergy, we’ve resolved thousands of ERISA liens since McCutchen. We know what works. If you have a challenging lien, we’re happy to take a look.