http://myshingle.com/2007/05/articles/ethics-malpractice-issues/the-unbearable-weightiness-of-bar-sanctions-on-solos/ Great Things Come in Small [Law] Practices! Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:09:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://myshingle.com/2007/05/articles/ethics-malpractice-issues/the-unbearable-weightiness-of-bar-sanctions-on-solos/comment-page-1/#comment-2539 Steven M. Warshawsky Sat, 02 Jun 2007 13:20:26 +0000 http://174.120.83.8/~sh1ngl3/2007/05/articles/uncategorized/the-unbearable-weightiness-of-bar-sanctions-on-solos/#comment-2539 Re Ed's comment, it seems to me that practicing without malpractice insurance is a very risky move. But, in any event, it is hardly unreasonable to require that prospective clients be given notice of this highly relevant fact. How is this unfair? After all, the state could have mandated that all lawyers (like all drivers) be insured. Re Ed’s comment, it seems to me that practicing without malpractice insurance is a very risky move. But, in any event, it is hardly unreasonable to require that prospective clients be given notice of this highly relevant fact. How is this unfair? After all, the state could have mandated that all lawyers (like all drivers) be insured.

]]> http://myshingle.com/2007/05/articles/ethics-malpractice-issues/the-unbearable-weightiness-of-bar-sanctions-on-solos/comment-page-1/#comment-2538 Ed Poll Tue, 29 May 2007 08:08:33 +0000 http://174.120.83.8/~sh1ngl3/2007/05/articles/uncategorized/the-unbearable-weightiness-of-bar-sanctions-on-solos/#comment-2538 Another example of the disproportionate burden being carried by sole practitioners is the current State Bar of California proposed rule re malpractice insurance disclosure. The rule, if (likely when this year) adopted by The State Bar of California, will require attorneys to provide notice and disclose to their clients that they do NOT have malpractice insurance. Their is no concomitant requirement that they disclose insurance coverage or the nature of the coverage or the amount of coverage. And their is NO effort on the part of The State Bar to provide affordable malpractice insurance premiums. The Bar will let the market place deal with this, but of course they are forcing customers into the market! Another example of the disproportionate burden being carried by sole practitioners is the current State Bar of California proposed rule re malpractice insurance disclosure. The rule, if (likely when this year) adopted by The State Bar of California, will require attorneys to provide notice and disclose to their clients that they do NOT have malpractice insurance. Their is no concomitant requirement that they disclose insurance coverage or the nature of the coverage or the amount of coverage. And their is NO effort on the part of The State Bar to provide affordable malpractice insurance premiums. The Bar will let the market place deal with this, but of course they are forcing customers into the market!

]]>