Hide table of contents

It's come to my attention that many of the smaller EA orgs are not putting into place basic protection measures that keep their leaders safe. In the world we live in, risk mitigation and potential lawsuits are a fact of life, and I wouldn't want anyone to put themselves at greater risk just because they are unaware of the risk and easy steps to avoid it.

Rule #1: Incorporate. 

I know most are hesitant to start an actual non-profit since that is more expensive and time-consuming, but at the least, you can form an LLC. That means that any liability accrued by the org CANNOT pass on to you (I think there are a few exceptions, but you can research that). LLCs are easy to start, and are pretty inexpensive (a few hundred to start, and then annually).

Rule #2: Get your organization its own bank account

It is NOT a good idea to keep your organization's finances together with your personal ones for many reasons. That increases the risk of accidental fraud and financial mismanagement. If you have your funds and the org's funds together, you run the risk of using the wrong funds and increasing your liability, since it's not clear which activities are personal (not protected by the LLC) or from the org. You also can't really keep track of your expenses well when it's all mixed up. You don't need a fancy bank account - any will do. 

Rule #3: Get general liability insurance

Basic liability insurance is an expense (mine costs about $1300 USD a year, but that's for my particular services), but if you're providing any type of guidance, mentoring, services, or events, it's a must. I can go into all sorts of potential lawsuits that you hopefully won't have, but if you even have one, your organization will likely go bankrupt if you don't have the protection insurance provides.

This is not meant to be an in-depth article of all the things you can do, but EVERY EA org that is providing some type of service should have this in place. There's no reason to have our leaders assuming unnecessary risk.

I don't know what this looks like if you're fiscally sponsored - I'd assume that they assume the liability - but I would love it if someone could clarify.

I hope we can start changing the standard practices to protect our leaders and organizations. If anyone has any questions about their particular org, please feel free to reach out.

Comments12


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

To expound on point 1, maintaining corporate protections is not a one-time deal. You also need to follow the required corporate formalities on an ongoing basis. 

For point 3, it could be rational to go without general liability insurance in some cases -- e.g., where the risk is low, the organization has little in the way of assets, and any person with potential personal liability has few assets without a substantial income. Being "judgment-proof" is a viable defense strategy, or at least "judgment-proof" enough that litigation would cost the plaintiff more than they could reasonably hope to collect. Whether having adequate insurance to cover risks borne by third parties is a moral obligation is an exercise left to the reader.

Other insurance considerations: if you regularly use your personally-owned automobile for business purposes, you should probably discuss that with an insurance agent in addition to discussing a general liability insurance policy. Also -- I think most EAs are in pretty low-risk lines of work for worker's compensation, but it is available (and sometimes required) for organizations with a single employee. 

Very late to this, but just adding that incorporating in Australia is relatively easy and inexpensive too (~$500 AUD, 15-20 hours). Ongoing compliance burden is low, and incorporating as a 'not-for-profit limited liability company' provides good legal protections.

The biggest downside is the limitations on the activities able to be undertaken by any charity, and if your charity is tax-deductible - the range of activities you can undertake is very much constrained.

We have similar restrictions on non-profits in the US. (Under US regulations not all non-profits are charities, but most are.)
One option is to just do the same thing as a for profit entity, however, shareholders can sue if you aren't making decisions based on making profits.

Same general principles apply in the UK - a simple guide is here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ZwTrykpvztrF5FQQL/how-to-set-up-a-uk-organisation-limited-company-version

D&O insurance should be a consideration as well.

Out of curiosity, have any of the major EA orgs been involved in any lawsuits to date? I've never heard of any, but even if there have been none, we can't assume there never will be.

It is common for lawsuits [edit: or legal threats] to end in settlements which include everyone involved agreeing not to talk about it. I can think of several involving orgs within the EA community.

I know most are hesitant to start an actual non-profit since that is more expensive and time-consuming, but at the least, you can form an LLC.

It may be better to seek fiscal sponsorship from a relevant existing non-profit org.

Setting up a microsized non-profit -- less than $50K expected revenue in first three years -- in the US could be made rather easy and not expensive. The 1023-EZ is surprisingly not misnamed.

In the arts in the US it's common for a grant or donations to be given to a non-profit who takes 6-10% and then the rest is given to the artist, filmmaker, or for profit production company.

Note: Liability insurance works differently in different countries. For example in the US if I work as a doctor for three years and pay premiums for liability insurance during those three years, then any liability for any actions during that time are covered forever. If someone sues me for something that happened during that time period after I've retired I'm covered because I paid premiums during the time of the incident.
In other countries you are only covered if you have paid for insurance during the time period that you are sued. (They have additional policies to cover you after you leave a job or profession.)

This is not quite correct on the specifics. In the US, insurers write both claims-made and occurence policies. Your description of US med mal policies is an occurence policy, but I believe most med mal / professional liability coverage is claims made. In contrast, US car insurance is at least generally occurence. One needs to consult the specific insurance contract in question.

See generally https://www.thehartford.com/business-insurance/claims-made-vs-occurrence, a large US insurer who writes both kinds

Curated and popular this week
abrahamrowe
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
This is a Draft Amnesty Week draft. It may not be polished, up to my usual standards, fully thought through, or fully fact-checked.  Commenting and feedback guidelines:  I'm posting this to get it out there. I'd love to see comments that take the ideas forward, but criticism of my argument won't be as useful at this time, in part because I won't do any further work on it. This is a post I drafted in November 2023, then updated for an hour in March 2025. I don’t think I’ll ever finish it so I am just leaving it in this draft form for draft amnesty week (I know I'm late). I don’t think it is particularly well calibrated, but mainly just makes a bunch of points that I haven’t seen assembled elsewhere. Please take it as extremely low-confidence and there being a low-likelihood of this post describing these dynamics perfectly. I’ve worked at both EA charities and non-EA charities, and the EA funding landscape is unlike any other I’ve ever been in. This can be good — funders are often willing to take high-risk, high-reward bets on projects that might otherwise never get funded, and the amount of friction for getting funding is significantly lower. But, there is an orientation toward funders (and in particular staff at some major funders), that seems extremely unusual for charitable communities: a high degree of deference to their opinions. As a reference, most other charitable communities I’ve worked in have viewed funders in a much more mixed light. Engaging with them is necessary, yes, but usually funders (including large, thoughtful foundations like Open Philanthropy) are viewed as… an unaligned third party who is instrumentally useful to your organization, but whose opinions on your work should hold relatively little or no weight, given that they are a non-expert on the direct work, and often have bad ideas about how to do what you are doing. I think there are many good reasons to take funders’ perspectives seriously, and I mostly won’t cover these here. But, to
Jim Chapman
 ·  · 12m read
 · 
By Jim Chapman, Linkedin. TL;DR: In 2023, I was a 57-year-old urban planning consultant and non-profit professional with 30 years of leadership experience. After talking with my son about rationality, effective altruism, and AI risks, I decided to pursue a pivot to existential risk reduction work. The last time I had to apply for a job was in 1994. By the end of 2024, I had spent ~740 hours on courses, conferences, meetings with ~140 people, and 21 job applications. I hope that by sharing my experiences, you can gain practical insights, inspiration, and resources to navigate your career transition, especially for those who are later in their career and interested in making an impact in similar fields. I share my experience in 5 sections - sparks, take stock, start, do, meta-learnings, and next steps. [Note - as of 03/05/2025, I am still pursuing my career shift.] Sparks – 2022 During a Saturday bike ride, I admitted to my son, “No, I haven’t heard of effective altruism.” On another ride, I told him, “I'm glad you’re attending the EAGx Berkely conference." Some other time, I said, "Harry Potter and Methods of Rationality sounds interesting. I'll check it out." While playing table tennis, I asked, "What do you mean ChatGPT can't do math? No calculator? Next token prediction?" Around tax-filing time, I responded, "You really think retirement planning is out the window? That only 1 of 2 artificial intelligence futures occurs – humans flourish in a post-scarcity world or humans lose?" These conversations intrigued and concerned me. After many more conversations about rationality, EA, AI risks, and being ready for something new and more impactful, I decided to pivot my career to address my growing concerns about existential risk, particularly AI-related. I am very grateful for those conversations because without them, I am highly confident I would not have spent the last year+ doing that. Take Stock - 2023 I am very concerned about existential risk cause areas in ge
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
Written anonymously because I work in a field where there is a currently low but non-negligible and possibly high future risk of negative consequences for criticizing Trump and Trumpism. This post is an attempt to cobble together some ideas about the current situation in the United States and its impact on EA. I invite discussion on this, not only from Americans, but also those with advocacy experience in countries that are not fully liberal democracies (especially those countries where state capacity is substantial and autocratic repression occurs).  I've deleted a lot of text from this post in various drafts because I find myself getting way too in the weeds discoursing on comparative authoritarian studies, disinformation and misinformation (this is a great intro, though already somewhat outdated), and the dangers of the GOP.[1] I will note that I worry there is still a tendency to view the administration as chaotic and clumsy but retaining some degree of good faith, which strikes me as quite naive.  For the sake of brevity and focus, I will take these two things to be true, and try to hypothesize what they mean for EA. I'm not going to pretend these are ironclad truths, but I'm fairly confident in them.[2]  1. Under Donald Trump, the Republican Party (GOP) is no longer substantially committed to democracy and the rule of law. 1. The GOP will almost certainly continue to engage in measures that test the limits of constitutional rule as long as Trump is alive, and likely after he dies. 2. The Democratic Party will remain constrained by institutional and coalition factors that prevent it from behaving like the GOP. That is, absent overwhelming electoral victories in 2024 and 2026 (and beyond), the Democrats' comparatively greater commitment to rule of law and democracy will prevent systematic purging of the GOP elites responsible for democratic backsliding; while we have not crossed the Rubicon yet, it will get much worse before things get better. 2. T
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism