Disclosure – A further question

California has a client security fund for claims up to $50,000. No insurance is required of any attorney for a client to claim that amount. This is real protection for clients.

The argument about disclosure I’ve heard is that the public is entitled to know this information. I have yet to hear an answer as to why.  There is no reporting requirement elsewhere … though the public is affected (e.g., auto, fire, liability, homeowners, etc.)there as well.  What is the difference here? 

In all the other cases, there isn’t even a client (or public) security fund as in the legal profession …

The basic question still has yet to be answered by the Bar, or anyone else, what is the difference?  Why here? Why against the small firm practitioner?  Why not truly protect the public with protection money, such as affordable insurance?  Why isn’t client security fund enough?  Why, Why, Why?  Forgive me for being persistent. I merely am seeking to understand the underlying issue … who’s ox is being gored and why?



Categorized in: