Tips For Cutting the Costs of Professional Liability Insurance
A premium-sensitive law practice may look at these statistics and consider whether it is worth it to continue engaging in a noncore practice area that falls within a high risk category.
March 26, 2018 at 12:23 PM
6 minute read
Legal malpractice insurance is, for most law firms and practices, an absolutely necessary expense. However, not all law firms review whether they are getting the best price from their insurer.
The single most important document insurers use to calculate a law practice's legal malpractice insurance premium is the application. Applications generally ask a variety of questions, most of which focus on four important topics about the firm: size, practice areas, geographical reach and claims experience. Although such questions may seem routine or even innocuous, they often have great impact on how premiums are calculated.
Most law firms will take care to answer the application for insurance accurately, not only because the failure to do so could put their coverage at risk, but also because it can help ensure that the insurance is properly priced. Indeed, by avoiding mistakes and ambiguities in the application, the firm may be able to reduce the premium.
Who is an 'Attorney'?
For many calculations, insurers will price a law firm's premiums based on the number of full-time attorneys the law firm employs. Some insurers distinguish among “of counsel,” contract attorneys and retired (or reduced schedule) attorneys. Other insurers will price differently depending on how many partners or associates the firm employs.
Not all law firms will ask questions about the insurance application. If the application only asks for the number of attorneys, it may be worth asking whether more detailed information would be helpful. Indeed, the risks associated with a retired or part-time partner and an of counsel or a nonpracticing contract attorney are typically different from the risks associated with a full-time, practicing attorney. Insurers may recognize these distinctions and factor them into their calculations. It may also be to the law firm's benefit to specify these different roles, as some insurers will price coverage for “of counsel” or other part-time attorneys differently. Being up front about these issues may help lower premiums and also ensure more comprehensive coverage.
Law firms seeking to benefit from such detailed review can consider conducting their own detailed review as to how they classify attorneys of different levels. For example, law firms may consider officially giving new titles to semiretired partners, which could then support the firm's request for an adjusted premium based on the number of full-time attorneys. Adopting well-defined and accurate distinctions may be beneficial not only for the purposes of evaluating premiums, but also generally for purposes of risk management.
If a law firm treats all of its attorneys the same, without regard for each attorney's different role or schedule, that may come with a price. Indeed, including a number of “attorneys” on the application without any distinction for the types of attorneys may artificially (and unnecessarily) inflate total attorney rating units, which can translate into a higher-than-appropriate premium.
Practice Areas
Insurers generally evaluate the risk of insuring specific practice areas based on two criteria: frequency (how often claims are made) and severity (how bad the claims are). Some practice areas, such as residential real estate, plaintiffs' personal injury and family law, typically are known to have higher frequency of claims. Other practice areas, such as intellectual property, securities and environmental law, generally have a higher severity of claims.
A premium-sensitive law practice may look at these statistics and consider whether it is worth it to continue engaging in a non-core practice area that falls within a high risk category. For example, a five-person defense firm would ordinarily pay a lower premium because it has a lower number of attorneys in a lower risk practice area. However, taking on a single plaintiff's personal injury case can change everything. By reporting to the insurer that even some percentage of the firm's practice relates to plaintiff-side personal injury cases, the effect may be a different and likely higher insurance rate.
Separately, firms that dabble in a noncore practice area may also increase their risk for legal malpractice claims generally, which can also impact insurance pricing. The risk of practicing in a high-frequency or -severity field, plus the risk of practicing in an area in which the firm is not expert, could lead the insurer to view the prospect of insuring the firm as somewhat high risk.
Firms with “one off” practice areas can give some thought to whether the potential gain from the representation in attorney's fees outweighs the additional cost (in premium) and risk (for legal malpractice).
Credits for “Good Behavior”
In addition to the above semibiographical information, insurers may also adjust the cost of premiums based on their history with the law firm or the application of premium credits. For example, many insurers make adjustments in favor of renewal business, particularly for those firms with a relatively positive claim experience.
In addition, some insurers offer specific premium credits tied to the law firm's efforts at risk management. For example, if a law firm can show dedicated use of risk management tools, such as docket control, conflict resolution procedures, or formalized billing practices, that may cause the insurer to discount the firm's premiums.
By taking stock of the firm's internal risk management procedures, the law firm may implement additional risk management tools, such as in-house training or written procedures. The benefit can be twofold: implementing such procedures may reduce the likelihood of receiving a claim and additionally may help the law firm advocate for a discount on premiums.
In building a business relationship with their insurers, law firms can determine what benefits or opportunities for reductions in premiums are available to them.
Shari L. Klevens is a partner at Dentons US in Atlanta and Washington and serves on the firm's U.S. board of directors. She represents and advises lawyers and insurers on complex claims and is co-chair of Dentons' global insurance sector team.
Alanna Clair is a partner at Dentons US in Washington and focuses on professional liability defense. Shari and Alanna are co-authors of “The Lawyer's Handbook: Ethics Compliance and Claim Avoidance.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBusiness Breakups: Why Business and Commercial Cases Are Well-Suited to Mediation
5 minute readIn RE: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation
Trending Stories
- 1First California Zantac Jury Ends in Mistrial
- 2Democrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
- 3Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 4Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 5Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250