A therapy benefit RFP template built for the realities of attorney mental health.
For HR and procurement leads at AmLaw and mid-market firms running an RFP to replace or supplement the EAP. A scoring rubric, a vendor questionnaire, and a structural read on what the standard EAP comparison misses.
An RFP framework for the firm running a real comparison.
This page is for the HR director, benefits lead, or procurement officer at an AmLaw or mid-market firm scoping a therapy benefit RFP, either to replace an existing EAP or to layer a private channel on top of it. If that is you, the rest of this page is the briefing document.
Most therapy benefit RFPs at law firms run on a benefits-shop template scoped for any service vendor. That template is not built to surface the differences that matter most for attorney populations: clinician fluency with legal practice, intake routing, session-length flexibility, and confidentiality posture toward the firm. CEREVITY built this RFP framework to fix that.
Our clinicians are independent licensed professionals. Many have worked with attorneys before and understand the partnership track, associate pressures, and the specific isolation that comes with practicing law inside a firm. CEREVITY exists because the standard EAP model leaves most of attorney mental health untreated, and because the procurement process for replacing or supplementing it needs better questions.
An attorney mental health RFP is not a wellness-vendor RFP.
The reason most EAP utilization at law firms sits in low single digits is not that attorneys do not need care. It is that the procurement template that selected the EAP was not scoped around the questions that determine whether attorneys will engage.
Attorney populations present with a recognizable clinical profile: high-functioning anxiety, problem drinking, burnout linked to billable-hour structures, and the confidentiality concerns that come with practicing law. The 2016 ABA-Hazelden Betty Ford study put problem drinking at 21%, depression at 28%, and anxiety symptoms at 19% across the practicing US bar. Those are the rates the RFP needs to be scoped around.
Standard benefits RFP templates score vendors on session counts, network depth, and per-employee-per-month pricing. They rarely score for clinician fluency with attorney issues, intake routing around firm leadership, session-length flexibility, and the contractual scope of what the firm sees about who has engaged. Those are the variables that determine whether the benefit is used at all.
What changes when the RFP is scoped around the realities of attorney mental health: vendor questions that surface clinician selection criteria, intake routing, the firm-visibility model, and the cost structure when attorneys actually engage. A scoring rubric that produces a comparison the well-being committee can defend, not just a price-and-network grid.
What an attorney-fit therapy benefit RFP needs to score for.
The dimensions the standard benefits RFP template under-weights or misses entirely. Built from CEREVITY's experience supporting firm well-being committees and benefits teams running these processes.
Clinician fluency with attorney issues
Ask vendors how clinicians are selected for fluency with attorney practice, billable-hour structures, partnership dynamics, and the specific isolation of law firm work. A generalist roster is not the same answer as a curated network.
Intake routing and privacy
Ask vendors who operates the intake, where the phone line lands, and whether intake routes through firm HR or directly through the vendor. Standard EAP intake almost always routes through firm HR or its broker; many attorneys will not engage under that posture.
Session length and cap structure
Ask vendors the available session lengths and the cap structure. Most EAPs offer one length and a per-issue session cap, which is a structural barrier to depth work. CEREVITY offers 50-minute, 90-minute, and 3-hour formats without an employer-imposed cap.
Firm visibility and reporting
Ask vendors what the firm sees about who has engaged. The default in broker-mediated EAP contracts is aggregate utilization at the firm level. The default in concierge platforms is vendor dashboards with engagement detail. Both are problems at the partner tier and merit explicit RFP language.
Network depth by jurisdiction
Ask vendors for verified network depth in the states where the firm has offices, not just total roster size. Roster-density questions are where many EAP vendors quietly fall short and where the standard procurement template fails to probe.
Lawyer assistance program interaction
Ask vendors how the offering interacts with bar association lawyer assistance programs and impaired-practitioner reporting obligations. The RFP should surface vendors that understand the LAP model and route appropriate cases to it, rather than competing with it.
Modality and clinical scope
Ask vendors what modalities are available across the network: CBT, DBT, psychodynamic, EMDR, couples work, substance use. Score for breadth that maps to the actual presenting profile of attorneys, not for a single generalist modality.
Pricing model and unit economics
Ask vendors how the pricing model behaves when utilization climbs. Per-employee-per-month seat pricing scales linearly with headcount; partnership-agreement pricing scales with engagement. The right model depends on the firm's expected engagement curve and is rarely interrogated in standard procurement.
Session formats are an RFP scoring criterion, not a footnote.
Most attorney-focused benefits RFPs treat session length as a default field. The available session formats actually determine the clinical scope the vendor can support, and they deserve their own scoring weight.
The steady cadence of ongoing therapy. Most clients spend most of their care here.
For work that needs more room than a standard hour can hold.
For work that needs uninterrupted time to reach resolution.
Because CEREVITY operates outside the insurance reimbursement model, session length is set by the clinical work, not by what a payor will reimburse and not by a workforce-wide session cap. That is the structural reason all three formats can exist on the same network and the structural reason most EAPs cannot match the offering.
Want the RFP template and scoring rubric?
We share the questionnaire and scoring rubric on a briefing call. We respond personally within 48 business hours with proposed times and any prepared materials relevant to your firm's procurement timeline.
Request the templateHow a attorney is matched.
Matched, not first-served. Here is the process attorneys go through once the firm selects a vendor that supports it.
The eligible individual submits a confidential intake form covering presenting issues, modality preference, professional context, and scheduling parameters. Operated by CEREVITY, not a broker.
Intake is reviewed by CEREVITY's clinical leadership against the network's active capacity, current licensure footprint, and modality availability. The step that does not exist in an EAP.
A specific clinician is matched to the attorney. They receive the match with the clinician's profile, modality, and credentials, plus a direct online scheduling link.
Scheduling runs directly through CEREVITY infrastructure. No phone handoff. First sessions are typically scheduled within 5 to 10 business days of the match.
Care continues on the cadence the clinical work requires, in 50-minute, 90-minute, or 3-hour sessions, without an employer-imposed cap.
Capability comparison for Law Firm Therapy Benefit RFPs.
An evaluation framework on the dimensions that matter when scoping a law-firm-tier-tier offering for attorneys. Both models have a place; they are designed for different populations.
| Dimension | Typical EAP | Executive-tier platform | CEREVITY |
|---|---|---|---|
| Network model | Broker layer between firm and contractor roster | Single-vendor platform, W-2 or contracted pool | Independent clinical network with direct relationships |
| Clinician assignment | First contractor to reply with availability | Algorithmic matching on intake-form inputs | Clinical review by network leadership |
| Intake and scheduling | Phone handoff to clinician's line | App-based intake and scheduling | Network-operated intake, direct online scheduling |
| Session formats | Standard 50-minute; capped session counts | Standard 45 to 50-minute sessions | 50-minute, 90-minute, and 3-hour formats, no cap |
| Clinical scope | Acute, broadly applicable concerns | Workforce-wide, executive tier as upsell | Built around Law Firm Therapy Benefit RFPs presenting issues |
| Modality fit | Generalist talk therapy | Generalist therapy with some specialty | CBT, DBT, psychodynamic, matched at intake |
| Reach | National via roster density | National telehealth, roster variance | All 50 states via telehealth |
| Payment model | Firm-sponsored, in-network | Per-employee-per-month seat pricing | Private-pay, out-of-network, partnership agreement |
| Firm visibility | Aggregate, broker-mediated | Vendor dashboards with engagement | Administrative reporting only |
| Right fit for | Workforce-wide acute support | Mid-tier ongoing with executive add-on | Law Firm Therapy Benefit RFPs, end-to-end |
What the firm sees, and what it does not.
For a law-firm-tier-tier channel to function, the participating attorney has to trust that engaging with it does not create visibility into their care. CEREVITY is built around that requirement.
- Confirmation that contracted services were provided to eligible individuals.
- Aggregate utilization at the partnership level, where contractually appropriate.
- Invoicing and eligibility reconciliation.
- Nothing tied to a specific named attorney's clinical content.
- Whether a specific named attorney has scheduled, attended, or engaged.
- What clinical issues are being addressed, or which clinician is assigned.
- Session notes, treatment plans, or diagnostic information.
- Any attendance detail at the individual level.
Clinicians are independent licensed professionals operating under their own licensure and the confidentiality and privacy obligations that attach to it. Protected health information is held within the clinical infrastructure, and the agreements governing it are defined in writing before the partnership goes live.
Clinical records, session content, and individual engagement data sit inside the clinical platform. The administrative layer the partner interacts with is structurally separate from the clinical layer.
Eligibility lists are maintained on the partner side and confirmed at the point of intake. Administering eligibility does not require the partner to receive clinical information back.
A Business Associate Agreement is executed where the partnership structure requires it. The partnership agreement defines the administrative reporting scope in writing before the partnership goes live.
What the first 30 days look like.
The hardest part of a law-firm-tier-tier partnership is not the contract. It is the period between signature and the first attorney in care.
A 60-minute kickoff with your team and CEREVITY's partnership lead. We confirm the partnership shape, the eligibility model, the administrative reporting scope, and the internal owner. The BAA, where applicable, is executed.
Your team provides the eligible-individual list. CEREVITY confirms it against the network and establishes the verification path at intake. Only eligibility confirmation flows forward.
CEREVITY provides a confidential, law-firm-tier-appropriate comms template explaining the benefit, the privacy posture, and how to access intake. Designed to be received without stigma.
Eligible individuals begin intake on their own cadence. First sessions are typically scheduled within 5 to 10 business days. By day 30, the partnership is operational and a quarterly review cadence is in place.
The business case the well-being committee and procurement can defend together.
Three axes that a procurement-led benefit selection can be defended against, when the well-being committee and HR co-sponsor the RFP. The numbers will vary by firm; the structural argument does not.
Attorney retention math is per-departure, not workforce-wide.
Industry estimates of the cost of replacing a third-year associate now exceed $1 million in lost billable time and replacement cost, per Lateral Link and Above the Law analyses. A benefit selected on a per-employee-per-month frame undersells itself against retention math that runs at the per-departure level.
Utilization is the only metric that matters.
An EAP with strong contractual terms and a clinician roster that attorneys will not call is a benefit the firm is paying for and not getting. RFP scoring weighted toward the variables that actually drive engagement, not just the variables that fit a procurement template, is how the firm gets out of that pattern.
Recruiting and lateral attraction.
Mid-career laterals and partner candidates increasingly evaluate a firm's well-being posture as part of the partnership or lateral decision. A named, confidential, attorney-fit mental health channel selected through a defensible RFP process is a differentiating signal in the lateral market.
Questions attorneys and their teams ask first.
The CEREVITY RFP template includes a vendor questionnaire covering clinician selection, intake routing, session formats, firm visibility, network depth, LAP interaction, modality breadth, and pricing model, together with a scoring rubric that weights the dimensions that actually drive attorney engagement. We share it on a briefing call so we can scope the right version for your firm.
Both. Many firms use the CEREVITY template as the basis for a multi-vendor RFP and ask us to respond alongside other vendors. Others ask us to consult on the procurement framework first. Both are appropriate paths and we are explicit about which role we are playing.
Either is a valid structure. Many firms keep the EAP for workforce-wide acute support and add CEREVITY as the attorney-tier private channel. Others replace the EAP entirely. The RFP template is designed to support both scoping decisions.
Clinicians in the CEREVITY network are independently licensed professionals operating under their own licensure and the confidentiality and privacy obligations that attach to it. The handling of any protected health information, and the specific agreements that govern it including any Business Associate Agreement, are defined in writing in the partnership agreement before the partnership goes live, scoped to your firm's structure.
No. CEREVITY is private-pay and out-of-network by design. The structure is intentional: it is the only way to deliver the clinical scope, session formats, and confidentiality posture an attorney population requires, and it should be evaluated in the RFP against in-network EAP offerings on its own structural merits.
Pricing depends on the shape of the engagement, the size of the eligible attorney population, and how the firm administers benefits. The briefing call is where we identify the right structure, and the cost falls out of that, not the other way around.
First sessions are typically scheduled within 5 to 10 business days of intake, depending on modality requirements and scheduling parameters.
Through a briefing call. Use the form below or email [email protected] directly. Briefings are scoped to your firm; we respond personally within 48 business hours.
Tell us about your firm and your RFP timeline. We respond within 48 business hours.
Briefings are scoped to your firm. Share a few details below and we will respond personally with proposed times and the RFP template and scoring rubric relevant to the procurement decision you are running.
The structural argument on this page is based on the firsthand experience of CEREVITY clinicians who have served on EAP panels, combined with widely-published industry estimates of EAP utilization and Law Firm Therapy Benefit RFPs-specific data where cited. Specific contractual scopes are confirmed in writing in the partnership agreement before any partnership goes live.
