The Current Plan to Require Legal Malpractice Insurance Is Bad for Georgia
"This is a solution looking for a problem. And a problem we will have when, should this idea become reality, lawyers leave the trenches of helping all citizens."
May 20, 2019 at 01:12 PM
5 minute read
Regarding the mandatory procurement of malpractice insurance for all attorneys throughout Georgia, if implemented without much further thought and planning, and real input not just from attorneys who will make money from malpractice litigation, but attorneys all over Georgia with various noninsurance related practices, this move will be ruinous, not only for the majority of attorneys throughout the state but its citizens as well.
First, as an attorney who has taken a large share of appointed cases for our circuit defender in Cobb County as part of his caseload, my practice does not have impressive yearly revenues. Still, I manage to provide what the large majority of my clients would tell you has been excellent service while I run my office on a shoestring budget. Requiring me to have malpractice insurance will mean I take far fewer, and quite possibly no, circuit defender cases. After speaking with other attorneys, I know I am not the only one in this position.
Second, in all practice areas, but especially for criminal defense lawyers, some disgruntled clients who have no claim at all or who have suffered no damages, will be encouraged to sue their attorneys hoping to score a recovery from the insurance policies. I often represent good people in bad situations. But I have also had to represent a client here and there who, having no compunctions about committing outright theft, will just as easily file a bogus insurance claim. Thus, good and competent attorneys will have to deal with the stress of such unsubstantiated claims and possibly see their rates increase because of it.
Third, once a captive market is established, the prices of insurance will follow the pattern we have seen in health care. I certainly want a solution to our national health care crisis. But right now, my health care insurance has more than tripled in just a couple of years. So, while mandatory malpractice insurance will be a great boon for the insurance providers, as well as the attorneys who are involved in this field, it will come at a great cost to many of their fellow lawyers. But, to my knowledge, the leadership of the state bar is not looking to use the power of our collective numbers to find a plan that is affordable to all. Rather, it seems we are to be left on our own to find a plan—if one exists—that doesn't drive up our overhead too much.
Fourth, there are many lawyers who are not looking to practice full-time. For instance, there is the lawyer who is close to retiring but takes a case here and there, and the mom who wants to raise her children while overseeing a small practice, who may want or already have malpractice insurance but will be forced to not practice law, should their insurance rates go through the roof. And, the newly minted lawyer or lawyer with a few years under their belt will be deterred from hanging out their own shingle, instead being forced into or to remain at larger firms where they may not be suitable or happy.
This is a solution looking for a problem. And a problem we will have when, should this idea become reality, lawyers leave the trenches of helping all citizens. Instead, lawyers who wish to remain in practice will move to working only for those best situated to help them meet the ever-increasing cost of overhead. The cost of legal services across the state will necessarily rise as costs are passed through from insurance company to lawyer to client. And, especially for Georgia's needy and the lawyers who serve them, this will be a lose-lose scenario.
When the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Georgia meets this June 6–9 in Orlando, Florida, should the vote be held and should it pass, mandatory malpractice insurance will be a game-changer for most, if not all, attorneys in the state, how law is practiced and who is served. If you are persuaded by the above argument, I encourage you to make your position known to your Board of Governors representatives as well as the rest of the bar leadership. Only if they hear your voice will they be persuaded to go back to the drawing board and rethink what they are considering doing.
Alan Levine practices law in Marietta, focusing primarily on DUI and criminal defense.
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 AllOn The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
6 minute readAkerman Opens Charlotte Office With Focus on Renewable Energy, Data Center Practices
4 minute readNelson Mullins, Greenberg Traurig, Jones Day Have Established Themselves As Biggest Outsiders in Atlanta Legal Market
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Litera Acquires Document Automation Startup Offices & Dragons
- 2Patent Trolls Come Under Increasing Fire in Federal Courts
- 3Transforming Dispute Processes in Law: The Impact of Large Language Models
- 4Daniel Habib to Serve as Next Attorney-in-Charge of NY Federal Defender Appeals Unit
- 5Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege in the Modern Age of Communications
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