From another sole practitioner:
"It is my opinion that this whole issue is another win for the insurance companies.
If the bar is going to post the fact of insurance or no insurance, they should also require every attorney to report every malpractice claim and post that as well. I think as a potential client, I would more interested in the number and types of claims filed against my prospective lawyer.
Jan Butler
(Response: I agree with you, Jan. The fact of claims is far more important to the public than the existence of insurance. I think you hit the nail on the head! That disclosure would be a far greater benefit to the public than the existence of insurance. And, settlement agreements should not be allowed to provide for silence, non-disclosure, provisions. The fact of the claim, itself, should be sufficient to require disclosure.)
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?
Thank you, Carolyn.
In MyShingle.com, Carolyn Elefant said, among other things: "… Ed is the first LPM expert I’ve read who apparently, isn’t looking to profit off the rules by accepting them and then charging solos to help them comply. Rather, he’s using his expertise to help our profession achieve the right results.
There are many gurus who "talk the talk" of solo practice. But Ed Poll is out here in the trenches, walking the walk along with us."
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 ….
On Saturday, June 17th, The State Bar of California moved one step closer toward approving a new Rule of Professional Conduct requiring all California lawyers disclose whether they have malpractice insurance coverage. The Board approved a resolution to send out for public comment a new Rule that requires disclosure to each client AND to the State Bar for placement on the Bar’s web site whether the lawyer has malpractice insurance.
The following memorandum was prepared in opposition to the Board’s position for two reasons:
First, The Board adopted not more than three months ago that the State Bar has two purposes:
1.) To serve and advance the interests of its members, and 2.) To protect the public.
This resolution contradicts the basic tenet of that spirit in that members’ interests are ignored. In fact, more than 60% of the Bar’s members’ economic interests are ignored.
Second, the current resolution also does not serve the real interests of public against unscrupulous attorneys (the few that may be out there); in fact, it does NOT protect the public.
Thus, the following is a statement of my initial thoughts on the resolution approved by the Board of Governors for public comment of the proposed Rule to require disclosure of whether a lawyer has malpractice insurance. (more…)
Rules of Engagement, How Senior Law Firm Administrators Can Protect Their Jobs, appears at page 72 in the current edition of Legal Management, the publication of the Association of Legal Administrators.
ALA has just asked me to write a regular column for them and our first regular effort will appear in their September issue. Stay tuned!
Please send me (edpoll@lawbiz.com) your thoughts about what topics you would like to see discussed in my columns.
A piece of advice taught in law school and often ignored by trial counsel: Never ask a question of a witness when you don’t know the answer that will be forthcoming from the witness! (more…)