The Washington State Bar Association’s board recently rejected a recommendation which offered the Bar to require from all state licensed lawyers to obtain malpractice insurance. Just recently the State Bar of California’s board also decided against the requirement of malpractice insurance while Oregon and Idaho still keep to it.
The recommendation came from a task force that determined that lack of malpractice insurance “poses a distinct risk to clients.” They also said uninsured lawyers create an access-to-justice problem.
“Because 14% of Washington lawyers in private practice do not carry malpractice insurance … those lawyers pose a significant risk to their clients. Further, when lawyers lack insurance that means that from a practical standpoint, their clients do not have access to the legal system to seek compensation. These clients are often unable to seek compensation because plaintiffs’ lawyers are generally unwilling to pursue cases when the defendant lawyer is uninsured and may, therefore, be effectively ‘judgment proof.’ Lack of malpractice insurance is, fundamentally, an access-to-justice issue, and the task force has concluded that it is more than appropriate for lawyers to ensure their own financial accountability,” the task force said.
However, the Washington State Bar’s board voted 9-5 against the recommendation. The board, on the other hand, argued that lawyers would have to raise their fees if they were required to get insured. They said it would cause problems with regard to access to justice.
A proposal was raised to consider the “South Dakota model.” In that state, lawyers are required to disclose information to the clients in case they do not carry a minimum of $100,000 in insurance. Alternatively, in Illinois, lawyers that do not have malpractice insurance must complete a four-hour online self-assessment course. The proponents of malpractice insurance proposed to combine these two approaches.
But board member Carla Higginson, who voted against a malpractice requirement, recommended the Washington Board of Governors to drop the issue entirely.
“I think we do our members a huge, huge disservice by continuing this dialogue in the face of the overwhelming opposition we have heard,” Higginson said.
In practice, what matters is for consumers to obtain competent legal representation and avoid being victims of their own choosing. The choosing at issue is the act of choosing one’s own attorney. Just as with anything else, consumers should do some research, get pros and cons about each attorney and then use simple logic to make a decision. We recommend choosing an attorney who practices in a specific area of law, who has had many cases, and whose assessment of your case is honest, straightforward and realistic. Attorneys who promise miracles and/or millions, or create so much smoke that you are not sure of the possible outcomes are likely the ones who are more focused on taking the case than doing a good job on the case.
If you pick the right attorney you will never have to deal with the issue of malpractice. If you make a mistake in selecting an attorney it is always a good idea to seek alternate advice and make sure your attorney is on the right track or get another attorney to substitute him/her. Again, logic, clarity, and down to earth humility are key to spotting a good attorney. Those are the cornerstone at The Margarian Law Firm. We give you an honest assessment up front. Whether your case is worth $1 or $1,000,000 we will tell you how we see it. Our assessment will be based on logic and facts. You will be able to verify it for yourself. We will do exactly what we promised and the outcome will be exactly as we predicted - be that $1 or $1,000,000. Of course, there are various factors at issue in many cases thus we often give ranges based on each factor when we try to predict the outcome. This way the end outcome is never a bad surprise.
