Quantcast
Don't Miss
Home / The VLW Blog / Mandatory insurance for lawyers? Weigh in on the new VLW poll

Mandatory insurance for lawyers? Weigh in on the new VLW poll

The Virginia State Bar Council is expected to vote later this month on whether attorneys who represent private clients should be required to have legal malpractice insurance.

While we await the decision, VLW would like to know your opinion.

Support the proposal ? Think it’s bad news for lawyers? You you can let us know where you stand by taking the VLW poll, a new feature located at the bottom right of our homepage.

[If you'd like more background information on the issue, the VSB has outlined the proposal, the pros and cons and various ways to provide such insurance at http://www.vsb.org/site/news/item/mandatory-malp-ins-080408/.]

Posted by Sarah Rodriguez

2 comments

  1. D. Brian Costello

    I oppose mandatory malpractice insurance. Mandatory insurance is no more than a feel-good action that lets the Bar leadership publicly trumpet the fact that it “has done something about the problem,” even though the proposal will do nothing to prevent lawyer defalcations or to provide real protection to the public. It imposes a serious financial burden on small firms & solo practititioners; this burden is particularly unfair to those attorneys whose areas of practice are such that they receive no client funds or property (except payment for services already rendered) & have no need to maintain trust accounts. There might be some legitimate reason to impose this requirement on those categories of practitioners whose practice areas seem to be the source of most of the highly-publicized misdeeds: real estate settlements, personal injury & medical malpractice, trust & estate administrators (not estate planners) and the like. Perhaps it would be educational for the Bar to evaluate the practice areas that present the real problems & focus on them, instead of using this “shotgun” aproach.

  2. D. Brian Costello

    I oppose mandatory malpractice insurance. Mandatory insurance is no more than a feel-good action that lets the Bar leadership publicly trumpet the fact that it “has done something about the problem,” even though the proposal will do nothing to prevent lawyer defalcations or to provide real protection to the public. It imposes a serious financial burden on small firms & solo practititioners; this burden is particularly unfair to those attorneys whose areas of practice are such that they receive no client funds or property (except payment for services already rendered) & have no need to maintain trust accounts. There might be some legitimate reason to impose this requirement on those categories of practitioners whose practice areas seem to be the source of most of the highly-publicized misdeeds: real estate settlements, personal injury & medical malpractice, trust & estate administrators (not estate planners) and the like. Perhaps it would be educational for the Bar to evaluate the practice areas that present the real problems & focus on them, instead of using this “shotgun” aproach.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Scroll To Top