A pair of lawyers worked hard to win a malpractice lawsuit against one of their own, but it's very likely they won't see a dime for their efforts.
The reason: The attorney whose actions warranted the malpractice verdict of $537,787 did not have malpractice insurance. Additionally, lawyer Howard A. Lawrence apparently has no retrievable assets that could be used to pay for his errors.
Now, one of the attorneys who might not see payment for his efforts, solo lawyer Raymond Rigat of Clinton, says the state should consider changing its rules to require malpractice insurance for attorneys. "This case highlights what I think is a pressing need," Rigat said. "If this case does anything, given the size of the award, is I think it underscores the need for the Connecticut Judicial Branch to review its rules."
The lead attorney in the case, Erskine D. McIntosh, who has a solo practice in Hamden, said the favorable decision on the malpractice claim was bittersweet, because it doesn't appear his client, 74-year-old Norma Bell, will be able to collect.
"I'm happy for Mrs. Bell, I'm happy she got her day in court," he said. "But at the same time, I'm sorry she wasn't able to benefit from this case financially." By all impressions, it appears Lawrence is judgment proof.
Rules regarding malpractice insurance for attorneys have been a sore subject for many years. And not just in Connecticut. When a proposal to pass a model rule to require coverage for all lawyers was raised by the American Bar Association, it was fought in the committee stage.
Last year, the Connecticut legislature briefly considered a proposal that would have made it a requirement for lawyers to disclose publicly if they did not have malpractice coverage. The idea didn't make it out of the Judiciary Committee.
There are two main reasons offered for requiring attorneys to be covered by insurance: It protects clients and it protects attorneys.
There seem to be even more reasons, however, why people oppose such a mandate.
For one thing, most professional malpractice policies don't provide coverage in the event of malfeasance or professional misconduct, which account for many malpractice claims. Another argument cited by Judicial Branch Rules Committee members is that if all lawyers had malpractice insurance, that would result in more malpractice lawsuits.
A browser or device that allows javascript is required to view this content.
Subscribe to The Connecticut Law Tribune
You must be signed in to comment on an articleSign In or Subscribe">
No comments:
Post a Comment