House Judiciary Committee hears bill to exempt prepaid legal plans from Alaska insurance code

Representative Neli Jimmy, sponsor of House Bill 211, told the House Judiciary Committee on May 7, 2025, that the bill would exempt prepaid legal plans from regulation as insurance products and make it easier for subscription-style legal services to operate in Alaska. The committee heard testimony from company and provider witnesses and took no public testimony before setting the bill aside for possible amendments.

Supporters, including Mark Nelms, assistant general counsel and vice president for LegalShield, said prepaid legal plans offer an affordable, subscription-style alternative to traditional legal representation and can expand access to basic legal services in rural and low-income communities. “This proposed legislation will bring clarity and modernization to the law and will exempt modern non indemnity legal plans from insurance,” Nelms told the committee. He said LegalShield does not indemnify members for legal fees and that the company currently has “a little over a thousand members in Alaska.” Nelms also gave price ranges for company plans: family plans, he said, run from $29.95 to $59.95 per month; small-business tiers, he said, run from about $49 to $169 per month.

Joe Lambino, managing partner of Lambino Martino Professional Services Corporation, the provider law firm that handles Alaska LegalShield matters, described how provider firms interact with members. Lambino said his firm has 17 attorneys, three admitted in Alaska, and that in 2024 his office received 1,335 calls from Alaska individuals and businesses and drafted 43 wills; in 2025 so far he reported 487 calls and 17 wills. Lambino described complaint and redress channels inside the LegalShield system and the ability to pursue civil malpractice claims or Bar discipline against attorneys: “We are governed by the rules of professional conduct by the Alaska State Bar Association,” he told the committee.

Lori Winghire, director of the Division of Insurance, said the division has been neutral on the bill but expressed concern based on an opinion from the attorney general—s office that LegalShield should not do business in the state until it is clarified whether the plans fall under Title 21 or are excluded from Title 21. “The Division has been neutral on this bill, but I can tell you that some of the testimony—is a little concerning to the Division based on a ruling—that we or an opinion that we got from the attorney general's office,” Winghire said.

Committee members asked detailed questions about membership size, how the plans operate in remote Alaska, oversight, consumer protections and conflicts of interest. Representative Mina noted that the Department of Commerce—s consumer protection unit is one available avenue for grievances and urged the department be prepared to answer questions at a later hearing. Representative Underwood asked for transparency about the financial benefit to vendors if the law changes; the provider witnesses acknowledged the legislation would likely expand sales but also said it would expand access to legal assistance in underserved areas.

Chair Representative Gray closed invited testimony, opened and closed public testimony (no members of the public testified), and announced the committee would set House Bill 211 aside for a later hearing to address possible amendments. The committee also opened and closed public testimony on House Bill 159 with no speakers and set that bill aside.

The hearing record shows debate and questioning but no committee vote on HB 211; the bill remains pending and was taken up again at a later date for amendment work.