Texas Follows in California's Footsteps
The more things change...
Way back in June of 2007 I wrote this post, about the uproar in California when a rule was proposed compelling lawyers to disclose to their clients whether or not they carried professional liability insurance.
Now it's happening in Texas:
The Supreme Court of Texas has asked the State Bar of Texas Board of Directors to make recommendations in early 2010 regarding if Texas lawyers should disclose to the public whether they are covered by professional liability insurance (PLI)....Texas attorneys are not required to carry PLI. In fact, the American Bar Association reports Oregon as "the only jurisdiction that requires its lawyers to carry malpractice insurance." For some occupations, insurance is mandated, for others it's simply seen as a necessary (and responsible) business practice. While Texas attorneys seem to recognize the benefit of their industry's exemption from PLI, they seem resistant to the public being fully informed of this status.(h/t Examiner.com, via WhiteCoat)
I'm not sure I can say it any better than I did before. I only hope that it's okay to plagiarize oneself:
From the [original] article [about the corresponding issue in California]:Just to be clear: no one is proposing that lawyers be required to carry malpractice insurance, merely that they disclose to their clients whether or not they carry it. For thoseMalpractice insurance protects clients who lose money because of a lawyer's negligence -- missing a filing deadline, for example, or providing incompetent representation that affects the outcome of a case.The ultimate irony, of course, is their corresponding stand on medical malpractice insurance. Even as they go merrily picking our pockets with mandated levels of coverage, they bitch and moan about merely disclosing that they themselves can't be bothered to protect their own clients. Can you imagine the uproar that would ensue if doctors not only chose to go bare (if they had the option) but then refused to tell their patients? How dare they! How irresponsible!A lawyer's insurance status is "a highly relevant piece of information that a new client deserves to know," said San Jose attorney James Towery, a former State Bar president and head of a task force that drafted the proposal.
This one continues to fall way beyond "irony", past "hypocrisy", and right off the chutzpah meter.Once again, lawyers are proving themselves to be the most outrageous assholes imaginable. (I guess it's true that everything is bigger in Texas.)
Epic WTF.
posted by #1 Dinosaur @ 12:38 PM
15 comments
15 Comments:
You have to be pretty self absorbed to think that the rest of the population pays attention to whether or not state law requires those who do your job to carry insurance.
From the tone of the comment by Anonymous, I'm guessing that this is weaker than the usual closing argument that Anonymous would give.
Two lawyers share a practice. One has a client come in for a consult. The client leaves a $10,000 cash retainer, but when the lawyer opens the envelope, there is $20,000.
The ethical question for the lawyer is, Do I tell my partner? Badump bump!
Certainly not all lawyers are like that, but the ones who are prefer anonymity. ;-)
Continuing on this abuse of power topic. Have you read this? Report a doctor’s dubious practices, go to jail?w Somehow I missed the post originally, but somehow wandered across it today.
So Rogue Medic is your given name?
Labeling all lawyers "outrageous assholes" does nothing to foster constructive, respectful dialogue between attorneys and physicians concerning the very real need for medical malpractice reform.
I respect your right to say what you choose on your own blog. But I think you missed the mark here.
I wonder if having "malpractice insurance" creates an incentive for people to sue you? If you are bare of coverage, and someone tries to sue your personal fortune (go ahead, take my student loans), the adversarial process becomes dangerously personal. It's a lot easier to got for deep, impersonal corporate pockets, and I think this gives lawyers and suing patients a more pleasant target for acquiring money. Lawyers should paint each other with these juicy red targets.
Lawyers also carry malpractice insurance. And, yes, we also get sued.
Most lawyers and doctors serve their clients/patients well. We need to stop using such ugly language when talking about each other.
And stop pointing fingers and accusing each other of wrongdoing.
But JD, apparently not ALL lawyers carry malpractice insurance. And what lawyers in California and now Texas are complaining about is being required merely to disclose to their clients whether or not they carry it. That is what's painting lawyers in such an unflattering light.
(Is that language civil enough?)
The language appears to be quite clear and not at all offensive.
Bias increases one's likelihood of being offended.
I think the sentence "Once again, lawyers are proving themselves to be the most outrageous assholes imaginable." is offensive.
Anonymous,
OK, I would add the word some just before the word lawyers. Actually, I would use an entirely different sentence, but it is just a matter of style. However, this isn't about how I would write this. The post is about whether a lawyer, by refusing to inform clients of this risk, this lack of attention to the welfare of clients, is protecting the rights of those clients.
The behavior of the lawyers is appropriate for outrage.
I tend to avoid some of the language used in the sentence, but I do not worry about being unfair to people defending outrageous behavior. I would really only try to avoid including the honest lawyers with those heinous lawyers defending this client abuse.
Hyperbole may help to make that point.
I have no objection to the use of hyperbole in calling attention to outrageous and irresponsible behavior.
"The language appears to be quite clear and not at all offensive."
There actually is no language proposed. It asks for suggestions. Some don't like it. Some doctors wouldn't like it if it were required of them. Those that didn't would complain, those that didn't care wouldn't even think about it. Nothing surprising there. Really, it seems to be much ado about nothing.
"The post is about whether a lawyer, by refusing to inform clients of this risk, this lack of attention to the welfare of clients, is protecting the rights of those clients."
The post is not about a lawyer refusing to inform a client about the risk. The post is about whether it needs to be posted up front regardless of whether the question is asked. Frankly, you physicians are being pretty sanctimonious about this. If a patient came to you and the first thing they did was ask whether you had any malpractice coverage, you would be taken aback and be wary of them. It's natural.
As to whether it's a lack of attention to the client's welfare again depends on the assets, the size of the matter at issue, etc. You are in no position to make a blanket statement on that, Rogue Medic.
"If you are bare of coverage,"
I believe Dinosaur stated that's not an option pursuant to state law.
" It's a lot easier to got for deep, impersonal corporate pockets, and I think this gives lawyers and suing patients a more pleasant target for acquiring money."
That's the kind of statement made by someone who has never actually been involved with a lawsuit against an insurer. Not sure why physicians think it's so easy to get money out of insurers, given that they have to form class actions to get any money out of health insurers. There ain't nothing pleasant about dealing with an insurance company, as physicians ought to know.
Anonymous,
"The post is about whether a lawyer, by refusing to inform clients of this risk, this lack of attention to the welfare of clients, is protecting the rights of those clients."
The post is not about a lawyer refusing to inform a client about the risk. The post is about whether it needs to be posted up front regardless of whether the question is asked.
Refusing to post a notice up front that you do not carry insurance is refusing to inform clients up front of this risk. It is not refusing under all circumstances, but it certainly is a refusal to inform clients of the risk they are incurring.
Frankly, you physicians are being pretty sanctimonious about this. If a patient came to you and the first thing they did was ask whether you had any malpractice coverage, you would be taken aback and be wary of them. It's natural.
First, I am not a physician.
Second, this is about posting a notice of information about responsible behavior. Maybe more professionals should post notice of malpractice coverage.
It lets the client know that you are responsible. Unless you are not responsible enough to protect your clients. This disregard for the welfare of clients should be something that those clients take into consideration, when deciding whether to secure the services of that professional.
Anonymous,
"It's a lot easier to got for deep, impersonal corporate pockets, and I think this gives lawyers and suing patients a more pleasant target for acquiring money."
That's the kind of statement made by someone who has never actually been involved with a lawsuit against an insurer. Not sure why physicians think it's so easy to get money out of insurers, given that they have to form class actions to get any money out of health insurers. There ain't nothing pleasant about dealing with an insurance company, as physicians ought to know.
Why would a class action suit be necessary in a case against a physician with malpractice coverage through an insurance company? The claim is against the physician. The insurer only provides the coverage.
The settlement comes from the insurance company, from the deductible of the physician up to the maximum of the policy. If the insurance company were to refuse to pay, that still should not be a class action. Perhaps if the insurer refused to pay every successful plaintiff it could require a class action. Not exactly behavior that would be good for corporate survival.
" It is not refusing under all circumstances, but it certainly is a refusal to inform clients of the risk they are incurring."
I agree. I think that applies to anyone or any entity you do business with though. I guess I don't see the big deal either way.
"It lets the client know that you are responsible. Unless you are not responsible enough to protect your clients."
If the client is already doubting I'm responsible, they should leave. It means one time I paid for insurance. Doesn't tell you much else. Just seems like a lot of noise about nothing.
Post a Comment
<< Home