Law Firm Fees & Compensation
Michael Brychel, Senior Legal Auditor at Stuart Maue, headquartered in
He says, "For those who accept the premise that “law firms ARE businesses – get over it” this book will be an effective jump start to incorporating that perspective into useful practice."
Law Firm Fees & Compensation
Our new book will go to press in two weeks: Law Firm Fees & Compensation: Value & Growth Dynamics --- A LawBiz Special Report
Stay tuned for the official press release.
Will you work for free?
If you are salaried staff and not paid by the hour, and if the 29th day of February falls on a weekday, are you working that day for free?
Once every four years, we receive the opportunity to make a gift to our employers. Do you think they appreciate it? <g>
Are you still in love with your business?
I love Andy's question, "It's Valentine's Day, Are You Still in Love With Your Business" (aka Practice)?
He gives us 3 steps to follow if we love our practice ... and 3 steps, if your answer is "no," to fall back in love with your business.
Professionalism vs Competence
In a survey reported in the February 6th edition of USA Today, Money Section B, the question was asked: "As long as they are good at their jobs, should rude and unprofessional co-workers be tolerated?"
Respondents said "yes" (15%), "no" (84%) and "don't know" (1%). It is clear that people are tired of bombastic behavior, at least in the workplace. Can this be translated into a more collegial, and team-oriented work environment?
Patrick Lamb, a leading proponent of "value billing" has certainly committed himself to the concept of team effort. He opened a new practice with two other partners in January 2008. Collegiality, outstanding client service and billing for value delivered (not time spent) gets promoted one step at a time. Patrick has taken that first step in his new firm. Congratulations and best wishes for his continued success.
As more lawyers succeed in this business model, perhaps others will follow. Then, perhaps, will civility in the profession be achieved.
As a side note, I'm currently reading (actually, listening) the recently published book about Lincoln and his leadership skills. I'm struck by the number of lawyers who were the leaders of our country and the large percentage of our representatives in government (House of Representatives, Senate, and State legislatures) who were lawyers. At one time, the balance substantially exceeded 50%. Contrast that to today when only around 25%, if that, of these bodies are lawyers. Perhaps the lack of civility in our society in general and the legal profession in particular, is the reason for the lack of faith in lawyers. I don't know the reason or the answer to this dilemma. But, I do know that many lawyers are stressed, are "burned out" and are unhappy with their chosen profession.
Given this history, I am quite surprised and pleased that 3 of the viable, now 2, Democratic candidates for President are lawyers.
Civility has no chance to succeed!
Civility is the new mantra for bar associations across the country. In California, last year, the then president of the State Bar created a task force to study the issue and develop a set of guidelines.
But, the legal profession merely reflects society at large. I just came across a 2007 book titled The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't written by Robert I. Sutton, a Stanford professor. Great title!
How about these statistics:
- The number of homicides in the workplace is up
- "Boss-icide" has doubled in 10 the last 10 years
- Workers murder 3 to 4 supervisors each month, double the number of 10 years ago
- "Going postal" is more than the post office violence
- "Desk rage" is a new term
- 27% of workers experienced on-the-job mistreatment, according to a 2000 study
- One in 6 report persistent psychological abuse
- 36% of employees reported persistent hostility from coworkers and supervisors, according to a 2002 US Department of Veterans Affairs study
- 91% of nurses experienced verbal abuse that left t hem feeling attacked, devalued or humiliated, according to a 2003 study.
If our society is facing these issues, how can we expect lawyers to be more "civil" than others?
Collecting Your Fee -- Sue As Last Resort
In my book, Collecting Your Fee: Getting Paid from Intake to Invoice, I maintain that your intake procedure is the most important step in the collection process; that an appropriate conversation with your client about payment of fees in the beginning of your relationship will almost certainly assure payment; and that a business-like approach to the pricing of legal services and collection of legal fees will assure collection of most, if not all, your outstanding billings.
However, where there is delayed payment, be sure it is not because of a legitimate complaint against you or the service provided. Given that, if the client has the ability but not the commitment to pay, you may want to consider filing suit against the former client.
You should review certain considerations before doing so:
- Review the file to make sure there are no legitimate potential claims of malpractice staring at you
- Ask a colleague for peer review to confirm your conclusion
- Realize that your malpractice insurance carrier has risk management policies in place and you will want to know how these risk management policies may affect you
- For example, your policy coverage may exclude fee disputes, your carrier may increase future deductibles or increase future annual premiums -- do your due diligence to uncover the position of your carrier before you move
- When lawyers sue for payment of fees, they are met with malpractice claims either as an offset (counter-claim) or direct attack (cross-complaint).
- Of all the suits filed by lawyers to collect their fees, 10% arise as a result of counterclaim; 30/40% of the malpractice claims come from cross-complaints.
That is not all that many -- about 1/2 of all lawyers' suits to collect unpaid billings will result in an off-setting claim of malpractice and, I suspect, only a few of these prevail against the lawyer. Thus, if you know your client has the ability to pay, but is not, evaluate the risk, know your carrier's risk management policies and evaluate the likelihood of winning your unpaid billing before filing suit. Then, pursue your claim, file suit and move on.
Public Defenders Are Taken to Task - For Shame!
In the op-ed of the Los Angeles Daily Journal, January 29, 2008, R. Konrad Moore suggests that public defenders who choose to strike betray the constitutional rights and liberty of their clients.
Shame on you for thinking that public defenders owe more to society than other lawyers, public officials or average citizen. Mr. Moore seems to believe that becoming a government employee, a public defender, means that one's human and normal rights are checked at the door.
Yes, becoming a lawyer does mean that there are certain rights and responsibilities one takes on that are not required by others. However, I do not hear Mr. Moore suggesting that all lawyers owe a pro bono obligation to society, or that government officials are not entitled to seek increased compensation or that Corporate America has a social responsibility to its customers and a responsibility to its shareholders by keeping CEO compensation within reasonable boundaries or, for that matter, that the State Bar owes a duty to the public to require that all attorneys have malpractice insurance. And, I don't hear that the State Bar owes a duty of any kind to its members, let alone obtaining a program of low cost malpractice insurance so that attorneys could then better protect the public they serve. That would be spreading responsibilities too far. He's concerned only about limiting the compensation of public defenders.
Why then showed public defenders not be entitled to come together as any other group of employees in order to seek better conditions of work. Does Mr. Moore mean that the government can give any compensation, no matter how low, to public defenders and that the public defenders should be grateful to receive it? What about district attorneys? If they were to organize, as some have, does Mr. Moore likewise believe that there is a violation of the constitutional rights of citizens?
His argument is disingenuous and should be placed in its proper context. More to the point, why does Mr. Moore not argue that it is the responsibility of government and its citizens to make sure that defendants receive the best possible representation by compensating public defenders fairly and in accordance with compensation generally received in private law firms?
The Revolution is Coming - Where Will Your Firm Be When It Arrives?
This was the title of a program offered today by the Los Angeles chapter of Legal Marketing Association, with panelists Susan Hackett, General Counsel of the Association of Corporate Counsel, and Michael Roster, former chairman of ACC, General Counsel of several major corporations, and managing partner of a major law firm.
ACC, at its annual meeting in Seattle, WA in October 2008 intends to roll out an effort to relate law firm billings to client perceptions of value. To some degree, the panelists suggest that they seek to roll back the clock 40 years, when there was a “professionalism” about billing, a stronger and more effective bridge of communication between the client and its relationship partner at t he law firm and less emphasis on increased profits per partner. ACC is not quite sure how they intend to get there nor what the “it” will look like. But, the discussions with stakeholders has begun. And the ride promises to be interesting, to say the least.
Following are some of my thoughts in response to the comments made by Mike Roster, this movement’s titular leader and Susan Hackett, ACC’s staff representative. Both are clearly articulate and earnest in their endeavor to cause law firms to reexamine their processes and to provide more relevant and effective tools of operation for its members, counsel of Corporate America.
• From the lawyer’s perspective, “value” is another term for decreased fees from outside counsel
• While value is in the eye of the beholder, there is no definition that outside counsel can grab onto ... and one must question whether corporate counsel adequately conveys their needs to their outside counterparts
• ACC is seeking institutional change, not “one-off” bargaining for lower fees
• Corporate America is under tremendous pressure to reduce its costs to be competitive in a world market
• The problem does not exist with the $1,000 per hour (see recent WSJ article) lawyer who produces value, but rather with the $400 per hour associate who does not
• The catalysts for the current ACC project are:
• the latest associate salary increases at Big Law
• the incredibly high profits of Big Law
• the incredibly high profits per partner (average $1,400,000) of Big Law
• corruption of the billable hour methodology that was originally created merely as a tool to better understand what outside counsel were doing
• Most outside counsel are disconnected from their clients’ reality
• Outside counsel think in terms of “cya” and increased billings
• Clients think in terms of seeking business objectives and solutions
• CEOs are asking how can “average” partners, many of whom are relatively young, be earning $1,400,000 per year when the many management executives who’ve been working for 20 years are earning only $200,000
• CEOs are expecting something extraordinary from these high earners but believe t hey are receiving ordinary, or less, service and work product
• CEOs are asking how can a new associate who really is still untrained in both the specialty expertise and client relations be earning as much as an executive who has significant managerial responsibilities honed over 20 years of experience
• CEOs are compelled to drive for efficiency to be able to compete; law firms drive to increase profits per partner by terminating lower revenue-producing partners rather than increasing their efficiency and effectiveness
• When asked about high CEO “hand-shake” deals on departure from a company whose share value has substantially decreased, Mike Roster suggested that this is an aberration, not the norm, and that the managerial responsibilities shouldered by CEOs and other management have no comparability to lawyers in any event
• Mike Roster further asserted that law firms’ product, memoranda, etc., increasingly bear no relevance to clients and are expensive
• Corporate America is looking for outcomes and solutions, not memoranda or hand-wringing
• It was suggested that Corporate America may be equally responsible with Big Law, a co-conspirator by failing to look beyond Big Law
• More than 50% of lawyers earn less than $100,000 per year; many of these lawyers could competently address the challenges faced by Corporate America
• Mike Roster suggested that Corporate America will begin to look outside Big Law. From this writer’s perspective, this remains to be proven.
Irrespective of the outcome of ACC’s deliberations over the balance of 2008 and beyond, the challenge has been formulated, the discussions have become more serious and the conclusions will be nothing short of interesting, perhaps even revolutionary.
Getting Paid to Complete the Cycle
The business cycle of practicing law includes getting the client, doing the work and, finally, getting paid.
David Leffler, in GPSolo Magazine (Oct/Nov 2007) suggests that there are five stages to paying a lawyer’s bill:
1. Denial – Client says this couldn’t be my bill, the charges are too high.
2. Anger – Client says lawyers are way too expensive for what they achieve.
3. Bargaining – Client seeks to negotiate a reduced fee with the lawyer.
4. Depression – Client doesn’t contact you and is unavailble for your calls.
5. Acceptance – When Client sends you a check that clears the bank.
David talks about the importance of the beginning of the lawyer-client relationship. I agree. The intake process is what essentially sets the tone of the relationship. In my opinion, your success in the intake process at the beginning will determine your success in collecting your fee at the end.
For more about suggestions about lawyers' collections efforts, see my book.
Self interest abounds in State Bar action
The President said that “the State Bar shouldn't base policies upon what will or won't be popular ... Ultimately, our responsibility is to do the right thing." With this remark, the President of the State Bar of California justifies requiring 30,000 mostly small firm and sole practitioners to disclose to clients when they do not have malpractice insurance.
I find this remark of particular interest because it is usually said by one who wants to justify an act that is opposed by the vast majority of his very own organization. It is also offensive because it fails to address the very issue at hand. This statement is like Mom's or Dad's "...just because ..." response to a kid's inquiry as to why he should or shouldn't do something.
In this case, the statement is used to justify an action that will prejudice an isolated group of lawyers who practice in the small firm environment. They need assistance from the Bar ... and they don’t get it. Instead, they get slapped in the face. We might just as well place yellow arm bands around these folks and say they are "bad" people. There is no empirical evidence that this group of lawyers is subject to more malpractice claims than others. There is no empirical evidence yet set forth that suggests any reason to isolate this group of lawyers and identify or punish them in this fashion.
Yet, this very same organization has not, to date, honored its earlier (2005 Board of Governors Retreat) stated commitment to its members to provide them with help in their businesses (The Business of Law®) because it might antagonize a few legislators or other special interest groups or cost a few dollars or place additional demands on the staff. Where is the Board when they're needed?
This attitude explains why members of the legal community, generally, have lost confidence in its governing body. Why the Board of Governors would anticipate that lawyers in this State would support it in any future disagreement with the State Legislature or with the Governor is beyond understanding. One can “turn one’s cheek” only so many times before the resentment rises to the point of action.
The perception amongst small firm attorneys that the State Bar is the enemy and not the friend clearly gains traction with actions such as taken now by this Board. John Dutton of the Board of Governors perhaps said it best. “Dutton argued that some county bar associations, a few State Bar committees and most of the members of the Conference of Delegates of California Bar Associations have joined critics in opposing disclosure. ‘And here we are,’ he said, ‘saying, 'We're going to jam it down your throat. We don't care what you think.’”
Of course, the very Governors voting on this issue also fail to disclose any personal financial interest they may have in this issue, and several do. They also fail to address more important issues for disclosure if we were truly interested in client protection. And, most importantly, they fail to create an affordable insurance program that would allow economically marginal (but very good) lawyers to buy the very product the Board is promoting! (Dare we remember that the State Bar obtains several million dollars each year from the insurance program it promotes?)
Do you want to grow? Then "outsource!"
Q: Ed, can Outsourcing really make a firm more productive and profitable?
A: Outsourcing is just another way to delegate work; appropriate delegation is another aspect of leverage; and leverage is what makes law firms more profitable. If you want to grow a practice, serve more people, or increase your personal wealth, you will need to understand and use the principles of delegation and leverage. In truth, almost every lawyer does this now—having a secretary to type, file, and do other office tasks is an elementary form of this concept.
However, managing the legal process and overseeing the quality of the work product of others is the reality of the legal profession. And this is outsourcing. In such circumstances, whether the “outsource” is someone in your office or someone in India or someone located in between, YOU, the lawyer, are still responsible for setting the strategy of the matter, the quality of the resulting work product, and the management of the entire process.
Outsourcing is a heavy burden, and one no outsourcing lawyer should take lightly. When it comes to ensuring that client work is done correctly, the buck stops with you, the lawyer -- no matter who has actually done the work.
Selling your law practice with a covenant not to compete
Where courts have refused to uphold a covenant not to compete given by one lawyer to another in the sale of a law practice, one of the primary arguments against validating the covenant is that clients have a right to counsel of their own choosing. And, the argument continues, saying that a lawyer cannot practice law in a given area for a reasonable period of time restricts that right.
Yet, the court just upheld the Vioxx settlement with Merck & Co., one provision of which states that a lawyer who has a client accept the settlement must withdraw from the case and cannot represent any other client in the case, even if he/she already represents other clients in the class action litigation. Effectively, this provision restricts the right of clients to select counsel of their own choosing. What makes this situation even worse is that the second client (and others also represented by the lawyer whose one client accepted the settlement) is unlikely to get another lawyer with the skill, time and money to invest in learning a new matter in the middle of the case. The choice for these plaintiffs is simple: Settle with Merck or lose your lawyer!
While it's nice to settle a large and complex class action, what happened to the famous and apparently not so inalienable right to counsel - competent (in Vioxx litigation) counsel?
Social Capital - How to invest
“J. A. Barnes in the 1950s defined a social network as ‘an association of people drawn together by family, work or hobby.’ In the digital age, social networking websites amplify opportunities to associate and grow our social (personal and/or professional) capital.”
This is the start of an article by Renee Barrett, a marketing consultant, in her recent article about LinkedIn, entitled “Linked: Social Capital Invested Wisely.” Renee continues, “... I’ve realized that when strategically managed, LinkedIn is an invaluable business development and marketing tool with limitless potential for growing my social capital.”
However, there may be a natural limit to the number of “friends” we can have. In 1993, Robin Dunbar, an Oxford anthropologist, suggested that the magic number is 150. Dunbar concedes that technology may increase that number. But, there is still a natural limit to the number of close relationships, whatever that number may be, to whom we can turn in times of stress.
Most relationships start off-line. Technology may provide an easy, inexpensive way to maintain relationships; yet, it is essential to continue a dialogue (communication) in order to start and maintain a meaningful relationship. Saying we know someone doesn’t mean that person is one “to whom we can turn in time of stress” and legitimately expect a response.
Does disclosure affect strategy or competence?
Did you see the Tuesday edition of Wall Street Journal, Health section? David Armstrong discusses the business interests of doctors -- and their ethical responsibility to disclose their personal financial interests in any business that benefits from their prescribed medical treatment, whether that treatment be medicine, equipment or otherwise.
The bottom line is that it is the patient's responsibility to ask the doctor if he/she has any financial connection to the recommended treatment. The suggestion is that if the answer is "yes," the patient should get a second opinion. Not bad advice, but still a matter of personal trust and interaction between the doctor and the patient.
If the doctor has a financial interest in a treatment modality, this may influence the doctor's prescribed treatment. Note that there is no movement here to demand that doctors disclose whether they have malpractice insurance. Perhaps because the existence of insurance is not likely to influence the treatment modality to be prescribed.
Why is it that some lawyers misguidedly believe it is important for lawyers? It's existence or absence does not affect the legal strategy advised or vigor or competence of legal representation. As a side note, however, it is interesting to note that most of the lawyers advocating that other lawyers make disclosure DO have a personal financial stake in the outcome of this discussion. Most represent insurance carriers who whose premium income might increase. Yet, there is no disclosure required by them in their discussions of this topic. Interesting, eh?
Lawyer Benchmarks Taught by Airstream
There are benchmarks in life ... and in our law practices. Benchmarks might be as significant as a marriage, a birth or a death. In law, it might be graduating from law school, opening one’s own practice, winning a significant case, or in today’s world of Baby Boomers, moving into our "second season."
The Airstream trailer (see my earlier posts on this subject) has taught me and confirmed many lessons I’ve learned over the years. Here are just a few that our current trip has triggered:
Change is part of life, and we must learn how to manage change to be successful
Change requires that we be flexible
Life involves continuous improvement
Luck is the intersection of preparation and opportunity
Our Airstream adventure has now crossed an unexpected and exciting benchmark. My wife saw our Airstream trailer a little more than a year ago ... fell in love ... and had to have this one. That was a "sharp right turn," as one might say, for the way we were to live. We took it to a reputable repair shop for our due diligence, made repairs we were told about ... and began to travel for short jaunts, finding little things here and there. After a few trips, all the "bugs" were fixed. We were ready to go!
Today, we just completed our longest trip thus far ... into Central California near the Kern River. This is a beautiful spot in nature despite the drought that California is experiencing (hence the recent major fires) and the very low Kern River. Here, with about 15 other Airstream trailers in a "rally," we met and talked all about Airstreams, looking at what other folks have done to their trailers as well as the new trailers that some prefer to purchase.
The net result of all these discussions is that we’ve decided to sell our trailer. Don't panic, we're not getting out of this adventure just yet!Our trips thus far, the refurbishing we’ve done to our trailer in the last year, and learning about all the possibilities open to us, we’ve decided that doing more to our trailer would be an unwise move. Thus, we’ll sell the trailer, buy another shell, strip the inside, and then build it out with our specifications in mind. We’ll then have our own, very personal vintage trailer! The emphasis here is on "vintage." Really exciting.
This reminds me of the rights of passage as a new lawyer. Graduating from law school, going to work for another lawyer (to learn "where the courthouse is located"), and then becoming a partner in a law firm, and finally starting my own firm. There is a learning curve in everything we do, some longer and more expensive, some shorter and cheaper, but a learning curve nevertheless.
Throughout a lawyer’s career, we learn from each matter and client we represent. That is one of the most attractive elements of law practice – continuous improvement. Clients sometimes fail to tell us the entire truth, our adversaries keep us on our toes and, of course, the law may change in the middle of our matter causing our cited precedents to take on a different cast. In each matter, we manage changes, changes that require our flexibility to represent our client well.
And living with my wife’s dream in our Airstream does the same for me now> This process requires flexibility on my part for continuous change and enjoyment of this part of our life, one some might call our "second season," as I continue to coach and consult with lawyers throughout the country about continuously help them improve their effectiveness with clients, enhance their efficiency in delivering their services and, of course, increase their profitability.
Managing Partners Compensation
In an article written by Richard Gary (Firm, Inc., March/April 2006), he says that "... the principal message that compensation decisions affecting the managing partners should send is: ‘The qualities that will make our firm successful over the long term are superior lawyering, client service, teamwork, and fairness.’ In practice, that means that the (full time) managing partner should not be the firm’s highest paid partner ..."
Agreed that the compensation system must appear to be fair. If not, the whole infrastructure of the firm will collapse. But, one must realize the importance of the position. As Gary concurs, managing partners preside over businesses whose revenues are in the millions, even hundreds of millions, of dollars. This is not a position to be taken lightly or to be appointed to just because "you were out of the room at the time of the vote." This is a demanding position, requiring the trust of everyone (lawyers, staff, etc.) in the firm to be successful. This is the CEO of the firm and should be compensated accordingly.
In business, some salespeople earn more than the executive officers. That may be. But, in my opinion, there is no hard and fast rule on this. Everyone must perceive the element of fairness ... and the position of managing partner, the task of managing the firm, must be appropriately regarded and not thought of as a necessary evil or a position of lesser importance than lawyering. One cannot get along without the other. Without a sales force, without a production force, and, yes, without a management team to bring everything thing together, the firm will not succeed.
Each function within the firm must be paid in accord with its market value and its "importance" to the firm ... and all must perceive that they are being treated fairly.
In too many firms, the managing partner is expected to not only manage, but also contribute substantial billable hours. It seems that these firms fail to give appropriate recognition to the role and importance of the management function. Non-lawyers cannot guide the ship without substantial involvement by the managing lawyers ... And not every lawyer in the firm should be tasked with a management function (such as CLE director, recruiting chair, etc.) in order to be considered a good firm citizen.
In time, more law firms will move toward the corporate model practiced by their clients. Then, we’ll see the true nature of The Business of Law® and greater success for those law firms.
Email takes a holiday on Friday
USA Today said in a recent column that Fridays are going from casual to e-mail-free. That may be the only way to cut down on the excesses of email. Use email at business only for important tasks that cannot be done otherwise, especially communications in the same office. Address important emails first. And don’t procrastinate responding ... This may help some.
Email may not be the best communication tool for lawyers. This is especially true for confidential communications between lawyer and client. Hackers may be able to enter your system and capture proprietary and confidential information. (See our earlier post about cyber liability insurance and be sure to talk to your broker about this insurance.)
In the first face-to-face meeting with your client, talk about how they want to receive communications from you, by phone, email or hard-copy. Talk about the safety and speed of each method and get consent in writing from you client before you start using technology.
Disaster preparedness - Business continuity
While making a presentation about recovering from disasters to the Association of Legal Administrators national conference for financial issues, (see my latest book, Disaster Preparedness & Recovery Planning) I listened to another presenter talking about the insurance aspects of disaster. She noted some frightening statistics: More than 40% of all businesses never reopen after they experience a disaster; of those that do open, more than 30% fail after two more years of operation.
Her concluding remarks highlighted the importance of planning – planning to make sure you be able to continue your practice after a disaster. Disasters come in all shapes and colors, from 9/11 to Katrina to broken water pipes upstairs, to the absence of water (in drought areas particularly) where your data center cooling system needs chilled water, and everything in between.
And talking about insurance, check out cyber liability insurance that protects you against claims from clients (disclosure injuries) and third parties (reputation injuries) resulting from your acts. E-business interruption and extra expense insurance (analogous to business interruption insurance may protect you against fraudulent access or transmission. Insurance coverages that do not cost a lot to maintain but can save you millions of dollars if found liable.
Another insurance coverage that I had not heard of before is something every law firm should consider where there are 2 or mor lawyers of equal prominence ... Management liability insurance. Claims by partners for the negligent management of the firm and compensation disputes by partners against the firm. Claims usually occur where there is the loss of value in a lease, bankruptcy of the firm and/or the loss of a valuable office lease by the executive committee, or a merger-acquisition with some members left out.
While most lawyers don’t think about these issues very often, there should be a review periodically, at least annually.
Mandatory Disclosure If No Malpractice Insurance
Q: As a sole practitioner, I’m nervous about the possibility that new requirements that lawyers must disclose in writing if we don't have malpractice insurance. How will mandatory disclosure affect my business?
A: A little more than a year ago I strongly argued against a proposed new California Rule of Professional Conduct that would have required each California lawyer to disclose in writing at the start of an engagement and on the State Bar website if the lawyer does not have malpractice insurance coverage.
In late September the California State Bar Board of Governors defeated this proposal by a
Dodging this bullet still does not change the basic problem. The vast majority of lawyers are ethical and do not commit malpractice. The vast majority of clients do not sue for malpractice. But mandatory disclosure of the absence of malpractice insurance waves a red flag that could spur clients to file actions against the lawyers who are helping them, but simply cannot afford the insurance. Mandatory malpractice insurance disclosure symbolizes a massive cost that most lawyers simply can’t afford. In addition, and perhaps more telling, the current proposal does not protect the public (the asserted reason behind the proposal). And that’s why I continue to oppose it.
