Should Lawyers be Required to Carry Malpractice Insurance?
I just ran across an article in the ABA Journal that points out that only one state, Oregon, requires attorneys to be covered by malpractice insurance. There, lawyers must purchase at least $300,000 of coverage through a state fund.
My state, Maryland, does not require it and never has. I know there are many, many lawyers "running bare". I think this is colossally stupid. If the economics of your practice do not allow for the purchase of malpractice insurance, you might be in the wrong game. It is easy to think that because you are a dedicated, competent lawyer, you will avoid committing malpractice. But what if someone brings a claim that turns out to be unfounded? If you have insurance, it is defended at low or no cost by an attorney who is an expert in legal malpractice defense. You will have access to well-qualified experts to testify in your defense. You will have counsel with experience in assisting you with any bar complaint that may be made. With no coverage, you don't get any of that, and if you do, you pay as you go.
Whether or not the state requires lawyers to purchase malpractice insurance, its a good idea to have it. I just can't belive there are lawyers who go without. Why do I suspect that these are probably also the lawyers most likely to need it?
