 |
SUBJECT: Proposed New Insurance Disclosure Rules (Revised)
BACKGROUND: In May 2005, State Bar President John
Van de Kamp, in consultation with the California Supreme Court,
appointed the State Bar of California Insurance Disclosure Task
Force to study 1) if there should be a requirement in California
that attorneys disclose whether they maintain professional
liability insurance; 2) if so, what the exact nature and scope of
that requirement should be; and 3) what the best vehicle would be
for creating and enforcing any such requirement.
In June 2006, upon recommendation of the Insurance Disclosure
Task Force, the Regulation, Admissions and Discipline Oversight
Committee (RAD) approved a request to release proposed new
insurance disclosure rules for public comment. The Task Force has
met and considered the public comments. The Task Force recommends
keeping the basic structure of its June 2006 proposal, with
modifications to some particular aspects. RAD has considered the
April 12, 2007, Insurance Disclosure Task Force – Report
and Recommendations upon Return from Public Comment (Board
Committee Agenda Item), and has approving the release of the
revised proposed insurance disclosure rules for a 90-day public
comment period.
PROPOSAL: This is the second time that the
proposed insurance disclosure rules are being released for public
comment. During the first public comment period, the State Bar
received extensive comments on the June 2006 proposal. Those
comments addressed a wide variety of issues, ranging from the basic
concept of the proposal to suggestions for technical amendments.
The Task Force fully considered the public comments received in
response to the June 2006 proposal. The focus of this second public
comment period is the proposed amendments to the proposed insurance
disclosure rules. In summary, the proposed amendments to the
proposed insurance disclosure rules are as follows:
- The proposed rules would be revised to change “covered
by” professional liability insurance to “have” or
“has” professional liability insurance.
- The proposed rules would be revised so that disclosure is
required if an attorney “knows or should know” that he
or she does not have professional liability insurance.
- The proposed Rule of Professional Conduct would be revised so
it applies prospectively only, to new clients and new engagements
with returning clients.
- The requirement for a signed acknowledgment from the client
would be deleted from the proposed Rule of Professional
Conduct.
- The rule requiring disclosure to the State Bar would be revised
so it requires attorneys to disclose to the State Bar whether they
have insurance only when they “represent or provide legal
advice to clients,” and related amendments would be made
throughout the rules.
- The title of both rules would be changed to “Disclosure
of Professional Liability Insurance.”
The proposed Rule of Court would also be updated to be
consistent with non-substantive amendments made to the California
Rules of Court, as part of a comprehensive revision effective
January 1, 2007, and some non-substantive revisions would be made
to the proposed Rule of Professional Conduct.
ANY KNOWN FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: The fiscal
and personnel impact are unknown at this time. The mere adoption of
the proposed Rule of Professional Conduct does not involve an
unbudgeted fiscal or personnel impact. The cost associated with the
new Rule of Court is largely dependent on the mechanism by which
the required attorney reporting is accomplished. If the State Bar
is required to mail a form to each active member – likely to
be separate and apart from the annual fee statement – and
each active member is then required to fill out the form and mail
it back to the State Bar, there would be additional postage costs
and increased staff costs associated with receipt of the
information and data entry. If, on the other hand, attorneys are
able to enter the information online through the State Bar’s
member profile, there would be some programming costs, but they
would be relatively minor compared to the costs of manual
processing. In either event, there will also be unknown staff costs
that are required in order to perform routine compliance,
monitoring, and auditing functions.
NOTE: Only written comments will be
accepted.
ATTACHMENTS:
SOURCE: Board Committee on Regulation, Admissions and Discipline Oversight COMMENT DEADLINE: August 06, 2007 DIRECT COMMENTS TO: Saul Bercovitch The State Bar of California 180 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 415-538-2306 415-538-2515 Fax
|
 |