New Jersey lawyers are taxed in order to fund a doctors’ malpractice insurance fund. Wow! Talk about protecting the public! So why are we arguing about disclosure provisions and a false facade or merely apparent protection of the public in California?
Why aren’t we suggesting true protection of the public by putting some muscle behind the effort … money! Why don’t we create a State Bar insurance fund as they did in Oregon and provide real backing to the idea of public protection from miscreant lawyers? (more…)
Proponents say the insurance disclosure rules would help to protect the public from shoddy legal representation and ease the burden on members who pay $40 annually into a fund that covers uninsured attorneys. That fund pays out $6 million annually and its reserves are dwindling, according to former bar president John Van de Kamp. Attorneys have 90 days to comment after the proposed rules are posted in the bar’s Web site. But some quickly expressed opposition. Ed Poll, who runs LawBiz Management Co., and is a vice chair of the bar’s Council of Section Chairs, said any such requirement would be prohibitively expensive to sole practitioners and lawyers in small firms. Moreover, he said, the proposal "does not protect the public." "If the bar really wanted to protect the public, they would not stop at disclosure, they would mandate insurance," said Poll, whose Web site, www.lawbiz.com, displays comments from lawyers who are against the idea. "But if they did that, the know they would have a riot on their hands."
Written by Savannah Blackwell and Erin Park, Daily Journal Staff Writers … www.dailyjournal.com … June 20, 2006
If the Bar really cared about the public, we would see a move toward mandatory malpractice insurance. AND we would see a mechanism for such affordable malpractice insurance being available to lawyers from the Bar. See the following description of the current Oregon Bar Association program.
Let’s take another look at what general counsel are searching for when they hire outside law firms. This time, Thomas S. Brooks, Vice President of AT&T Law & Government Affairs, shares his views on the subject.
See today’s commentary by Adam Smith. He suggests that the entire firm, if the culture is trusting, has a collective antenna about how the practice of law, and particularly their practice, will change in the future. Then, the trick will be how the firm can prepare itself for that future. His major point, I think, is that too many firms practice in the moment and fail to prepare themselves for their future.
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?
I have a practice with a heavy emphasis on securities, and when I started out on my own 1 1/2 years ago, I was able to get $500,000 coverage (no more) for about $15,000 (I haven’t rechecked lately). I didn’t think that was worth it. $500,000 isn’t going to do much for the client (or me) when there is a $20 million claim for a private placement gone bad, and the coverage isn’t going to make me be more careful — I have plenty of other reasons to be careful.
Ed Poll, principal of LawBiz Management interviews Gayle Carson, president of Carson Research Center, on the topic of time management. While no one can truly manage time, Gayle shows us how to “pick up” 22 eight hour days over a year’s time. That would make one very interesting vacation, or allow us to do a lot of additional billable work. .
