Responses to Bar’s proposal
Hear are several comments in response to the clarion call.
Let me know what you think. I’ll convey your perspective to the State Bar ….
From: Edward Wiest < firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Jun 19, 2006 1:15 AM
From: Jonathan Stein
Law Offices of Jonathan G Stein
5050 Laguna Blvd, Suite 112-325
Elk Grove, CA 95758
916 247 6868
Good post, but I disagree with you whole heartedly. I think this is a good thing. My biggest issue: the state bar cannot mandate affordable insurance.
(My response to Jonathan:
Thank you for your kind words.
Jonathan, on the contrary, the State Bar can … as does Oregon Bar. The program in Oregon is run by its State Bar … and they mandate insurance at rates such that the private carriers can’t gouge the market …
Further, large law firms can self-insure and avoid the stigma.
Small firms who still won’t purchase insurance at 10% of their current income (not gross revenue) potentially will be at a competitive disadvantage …
And, the biggest knock against this provision is that the public will be no better protected than before. As noted, if public information is truly the issue, why not educate the public about the economics of law practice … Why should some lawyers earn hundreds of thousands of dollars and others (e.g., the 25% of the Bar) earn $50,000 or less. Is the one lawyer better than the other, or just a better marketer?
I am convinced that public protection is not the issue here. Economics is at play!)
Categorized in: Personal Thoughts