Steven E. Snow
Position: Partner at Providence’s Partridge, Snow & Hahn
law firm
Background: A Rhode Island native, Snow has been a member
of the state’s Bar since 1976 and a member of the Massachusetts Bar since 1989.
Education: Bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Johns Hopkins University;
law degree from The American University
Residence: Pawtucket
Age: 54
Alicia Korney
Steven E. Snow is a partner at the Partridge, Snow & Hahn law firm and
represents clients before state and federal courts, arbitrators and administrative
tribunals in matters involving banking, antitrust, intellectual property, unfair
trade practices, employment, securities, corporate and health care law.
He has represented clients in some of Rhode Island’s most notable civil cases, including a precedent-setting antitrust case involving two of the state’s largest health insurance providers. He has also argued successfully before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Salve Regina University when a federal court declined to hear a case that tangentially involved state law. Snow says in a move “only a law student could love,” based on the Erie doctrine he was able to argue successfully that not hearing the case was a violation, because it disrupted the defense’s chain of appeals.
PBN: Was becoming an attorney something you always saw yourself doing?
SNOW: Yes and no. I’m a local kid; I grew up in Cranston. When I was in high school I did stuff, I was captain of the debate team, things you usually associate with going to law school. But that’s not really something I thought I was going to end up doing. My kids would tell you that I’m a bit of a geek. … I went to a very scientifically oriented university, Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. They’re also famous for international relations. I got very interested in that and I ended up in an accelerated joint degree program in international studies … that sort of led me to law school. I went to a school specializing in international law, and that’s what I thought I was going to do … (after being hired by a Providence firm that wanted to develop an international practice) I started doing that, but I wasn’t all that excited by the private aspects of it. It was basically transactional kind of stuff, international trade commission, but at that time most firms had a rather lengthy training program, at the time over two years long, and you’d spend four or five months in each department and I was rotated into the litigation department which was the last thing I thought I’d be interested in and really loved it. … So after going through the rotation, I said, international law is nice from an intellectual point of view, but litigation is fun.
Q. Of all your wins over the past decades, which one are you proudest of?
A. Well, probably the case that is most famous is the Ocean State Physicians Health Plan vs. Blue Cross because it really is the leading case in the area of most-favored nation clauses. … The Ocean State case, Ocean State was the predecessor to UnitedHealthcare of New England (United actually operated Ocean State, it was owned by a local group of physicians) and when they initially went into business, there was an attempt to attract business. Their business plan was, ‘We’ll get the doctors to love us, because doctors don’t necessarily love Blue Cross, and the doctors will then talk their patients into going with us’ – which was a pretty good business plan. But since they were starting out against a much larger competitor, their business plan also included paying the doctors less than Blue Cross. Blue Cross reacted to that, saying, ‘We’re the big buyer, we’re responsible for 80 or 90 percent of your income and you’re giving the smaller competitor a better price? That doesn’t make sense.’ So they instituted what they called a prudent-buyer clause, but it was a form of a favored-nation clause that basically said if you do business with us, then you give us the best price. And so Blue Cross said to doctors who had signed up with Ocean State, you’re going to give us the price you’re giving to Ocean State. Well the doctors didn’t like that because they only had agreed to give Ocean State the better price because they were small and didn’t affect their income very much. Now it was going to affect their income a lot. Some doctors reacted, only a few, by dropping out of Ocean State. Ocean State was concerned that if everybody dropped out we won’t have a plan, so they sued Blue Cross saying that this clause was having the effect of driving doctors out of the Ocean State plan.
Q. When was this?
A. It was brought in 1986, but it went on for a number of years. … It was over by about 1989. The 1st circuit’s decision in that case was really seminal because they basically held that certainly under the circumstances of this case, a most-favored nation’s clause is a normal form of doing business. Even a monopolist is allowed to compete. So they found nothing anti-competitive about the use of the most-favored nation clause under those circumstances. It’s still really the leading case in that field.
Q. What is your professional relationship with Blue Cross?
A. I’m an outside counsel … it’s fair to say I’m their principal litigation lawyer … I started practicing in Rhode Island in 1976 and shortly after I started doing work for Blue Cross.
Q. Class-action cases are a big piece of the legislation brought against them.
A. There are a number of pending consumer class actions against Blue Cross. One in federal and one in state court. The federal case is actually much simpler because it’s single class; it involves the way in which percentage co-insurance is calculated. The state case involves that plus a number of other claims having to do with the way deductibles are calculated…
Q. Do you think those will end up at trial?
A. They’ve been around a long time. These are not new cases, they were filed simultaneously in May of 1996. But because they’re so large and complicated they’ve taken a long time to wind their way through. We’re getting closer. I think we’re probably reasonably close to trial in the federal case…
Q. Does Blue Cross get a bad rap?
A. I think they absolutely get a bad rap. They’re in a difficult position because it’s not a popular business to be in. They’re caught in the middle. They try to look out primarily for their subscribers and, in fact, studies they’ve performed show the vast majority of their subscribers are very happy with their coverage. But people don’t do anything about it just because they’re happy with their coverage. What makes people notice is when something goes wrong. A claim isn’t paid. Then people get angry. When the claim is paid, which happens 99 percent of the time, people expect it, but they don’t write a letter thanking Blue Cross. Health providers are in an adversary-type of position because they’re getting paid and of course, they’d like to get paid more. And I don’t blame them. They’re trying to keep down the cost of health care, which is rising very rapidly, and it’s not Blue Cross’ fault that they’re rising rapidly. It’s a function of demographics, of technology, of more availability, there’s a lot of reasons. Unless something dramatic is done, people can expect 15-, 20-, 25-percent increases every year. And it’s not because they’re not doing their job, it’s because people are getting older and they’re getting sicker … which is why Blue Cross is spending a lot of time focusing not on sickness but on wellness. If they can prevent people from getting sick, they can save a lot of money on behalf of subscribers…
Q. You’re an adjunct professor and teach occasionally at Bryant University and Roger Williams University. Do you think students and lawyers are coming out of school prepared for this field?
A. I think it varies. Writing skills are not what they should be, or what I think they used to be. … I think there are generational differences. People getting out of law school today, in terms of their attitude toward work – and it’s not just related to law – people are much more concerned with lifestyle today than when I graduated from law school. People were concerned about getting a job and trying to make money. It was understood that working hard sort of came with the territory. People today, and partially to their credit, are much more concerned with their long-term lifestyle than whether they’re going to make partner or not.
Q. What are the biggest legal and ethical challenges you see facing the state over the next several years?
A. I think trying to restore people’s trust in the system. And that’s a big challenge. Just talking with people in general, there’s a great deal of mistrust. People think that the system’s fixed, which I don’t believe it is. People think it’s not very good, which I also don’t agree with. A substantial part of my practice is in Massachusetts and I have to say I think the quality of lawyering and judging in Rhode Island is generally better than what I see in Massachusetts. But that’s not really how things are perceived. We have a better system here than people realize. I wish people would come to the courts more often. They’re open to the public. When I first started practicing, you used to see pretty full courtrooms. You’d have a lot of people who used to come just to watch. I think, particularly in the federal court, you just don’t see the public coming to the courts anymore and they don’t really know what’s going on.
