We belong to a self-regulated profession. We treasure that state of affairs and would be loath to be regulated by others. Being a self-regulated bar is a privilege, but it also has certain responsibilities the most important of which is to protect the public from attorney malfeasance.

Some states have mandatory bars where an attorney who is admitted must be a member of the state's bar association. There is a slow-moving trend in those states to require attorneys in private practice to carry professional malpractice insurance coverage. That makes sense because having such coverage protects the public from what can be devastating and life-altering consequences of not having such insurance.

Connecticut is not such a state; we have a voluntary bar association. The membership in the Connecticut Bar Association is only a fraction of the licensed attorneys in this state. A realistic assessment of the atmosphere of the Connecticut bar will yield the immediate impression that the Connecticut bar will never require its attorneys to carry professional malpractice insurance coverage. But we should at least require attorneys in private practice to disclose on the form that they fill out to register or renew their registrations annually whether they have professional malpractice insurance coverage. A few years ago, this was proposed in Connecticut, and the proposal was summarily shut down.

Connecticut lawyers in private practice should be required to disclose on their registration forms whether they have professional malpractice insurance coverage. Mind you, this proposal does not require such attorneys to actually tell clients that they have professional malpractice insurance coverage. It just requires that it be so stated on a form, available to the public, though most of the public likely has no idea such a form exists.

Given the potential consequences of not having such insurance, the proposal makes sense. The last set of substantial revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct were premised on the theme that the client should be fully informed. Clients not having access to information to inform them whether their chosen attorney has professional malpractice insurance are not fully informed.

That such a modest proposal was summarily shut down smacks of arrogance. Those who shot down the proposal may pat themselves on their backs, for now. But it just takes one ambitious legislator to take up this cause and draft legislation to require such disclosure for it to happen. That same legislator may then think it a better idea to require that attorneys in private practice carry professional malpractice insurance. It will then dawn on such self-satisfied attorneys that the concept of a self-regulated bar may be fleeting and in serious jeopardy.