Suggested Amendments to

RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

Rule 1.4

 

A.     Proponent

Washington State Bar Association

B.      Spokespersons

Kyle Sciuchetti, President

Washington State Bar Association

 

Staff Contact:  Douglas J. Ende, Chief Disciplinary Counsel

Washington State Bar Association

 

C.      Purpose

The proponent recommends adoption of suggested amendments to Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) that would require disclosure of a lawyer’s malpractice insurance status to clients and prospective clients if the lawyer’s insurance does not meet minimum levels.  It would also provide guidance on the application of the rule through the addition of six new comments.

I.                                          Overview and History

Washington lawyers are not required to have professional liability insurance coverage. They are, however, required to report to the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA), on a yearly basis, whether they have such coverage. Adopted by the Court in 2007, Rule 26 of the Admission and Practice Rules (APR) requires this information to be reported annually, which occurs as part of the WSBA’s licensing process. All Washington lawyers are required to certify whether they are engaged in the private practice of law and, if so, whether or not they are covered by, and intend to maintain, professional liability insurance. Recent WSBA reporting data shows that 14% of Washington lawyers in private practice consistently report being uninsured.

In September 2017, the WSBA Board of Governors (BOG) approved formation of the WSBA Mandatory Malpractice Insurance Task Force to evaluate the characteristics of uninsured lawyers and the consequences for clients when lawyers are uninsured, to examine regulatory systems that require professional liability insurance, and to gather information and comments from WSBA members and others. The Task Force was also charged with determining whether to recommend mandatory malpractice insurance for lawyers in Washington, and, if so, developing a model and a draft rule for consideration by the BOG.

In February 2019, the Task Force issued its final report, recommending mandatory professional liability insurance for lawyers engaged in the private practice of law and proposing an amendment to APR 26 that would establish a “free market” regulatory model.[1] The Task Force cited the regulatory objectives of assuring accessible civil remedies for clients harmed by lawyer mistakes and protection of the public as chief among the reasons for its recommendation.

At its May 17, 2019, meeting, after deliberation about the Task Force report and public discussion, the BOG voted against adoption of the “free market” mandatory malpractice model.  The BOG reached its decision after consideration of more than 580 comments from members and others that expressed very real and compelling concerns regarding mandating insurance. Members overwhelmingly opposed mandatory malpractice insurance, expressing concerns regarding cost, the likely adverse impact on pro bono services provided by retiring, retired, and semi-retired members, un-insurability for some high-risk practitioners and practices, the inappropriate delegation of licensing prerogatives to the insurance industry, the risk of increasing insurance premiums for all lawyers through the creation of a captive market, and the financial burden such a mandate would impose upon individual lawyers and the viability of their practices, especially solo and small firm lawyers.[2] 

In the wake of the vote, however, several governors suggested that the BOG consider some other models evaluated by the Task Force that might serve to protect the public against the risk of errors committed by uninsured lawyers.  Consequently, on January 21, 2020, WSBA Past-President Rajeev Majumdar convened the Ad Hoc Committee to Investigate Alternatives to Mandatory Malpractice Insurance to gather information and advise the BOG on potential viable alternatives to mandatory malpractice insurance.[3] This Committee is chaired by WSBA President Kyle Sciuchetti and composed primarily of select members of the WSBA Committee on Professional Ethics and the former WSBA Mandatory Malpractice Insurance Task Force, as well as members of the BOG and a public member.

From March to September 2020, the Committee explored approaches to public protection other than mandating malpractice insurance, including enhanced malpractice insurance disclosure requirements and proactive management based regulation.  Ultimately, the Committee focused on a rule requiring disclosure of a lawyer’s insurance status to clients when the lawyer is uninsured or underinsured.  The WSBA proposes this suggested rule as a less burdensome and more practicable regulatory requirement that will responsibly protect the public without having an unreasonable impact on private practitioners. 

II.                                       Suggested Rule

The proposed rule amendment includes both a new RPC 1.4(c) and proposed new Comments [8]-[13] to RPC 1.4. The language is drawn from enhanced disclosure rules in several other states, including California, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and South Dakota, with New Mexico’s RPC 16-104(c) having the most influence.

Substance of the Proposal. Specifically, the suggested new RPC 1.4(c) would require a lawyer, before or at the time of commencing representation of a client, to provide notice to the client in writing if the lawyer is not covered by professional liability insurance at specified minimum levels. The lawyer would have to promptly obtain written informed consent from that client.  In addition, a lawyer whose malpractice insurance policy lapses or is terminated must within 30 days either obtain a new policy or obtain written consent from existing clients.

The proposal was structured to address the major concerns underlying the BOG's decision not to require mandatory insurance.  The cost to a lawyer of compliance with the proposed notice requirement, as compared to requiring acquisition of insurance, is insubstantial.

As reflected in proposed new Comment [8], a lawyer without a basic level of professional liability insurance might not pay for damages or losses a client incurs due to the lawyer’s mistakes or negligence. Consequently, clients should have sufficient information about whether the lawyer maintains a minimum level of lawyer professional liability insurance so the client can intelligently determine whether they wish to engage, or continue to engage, that lawyer.

The new RPC 1.4(c) would require a lawyer to provide disclosure if the lawyer is without a specified level of lawyer professional liability insurance. The lawyer would have to promptly obtain every client’s acknowledgement and informed consent to uninsured or underinsured representation. The proposed amendment includes disclosure and consent language which, if used, would serve as a “safe harbor” for compliance with the rule. A lawyer would have to maintain a record of disclosures and consents for at least six years.

Certain lawyers would be excluded from the insurance disclosure requirements, including judges, arbitrators and mediators, in-house lawyers for a single entity, and employees of governmental agencies.

A proposed comment clarifies that the notice to a client may be delayed in certain emergency situations.

Minimum levels of professional liability insurance. The proposal recommends that for the disclosure requirements under RPC 1.4(c), the minimum level of insurance should be at least $100,000 per occurrence and $300,000 in the aggregate (“$100K/$300K”), which are the mandatory malpractice insurance levels in Idaho and the lowest levels of insurance offered by ALPS, the WSBA-endorsed professional liability insurance provider. The Mandatory Malpractice Insurance Task Force found (at p. 17 of its report) that nationally 89.1% of malpractice claims are resolved for less than $100,000 (including claims payments and expenses). According to ALPS, for all Washington claims where payments were made by ALPS, its average loss payment was $119,856 and average loss expenses were about $40,454.82.  Given these statistics, the proposed minimum level of insurance of $100K/$300K is reasonable and sufficient.

Lawyers covered by the rule. The proposal would apply to each “lawyer,” defined as:

·         lawyers with an active status with the WSBA;

·         emeritus pro bono status lawyers; and

·         lawyers permitted to engage in limited practice under APR 3(g), i.e., visiting lawyers.

The disclosure requirement would not apply to:

·         judges, arbitrators, and mediators not otherwise engaged in the practice of law;

·         in-house counsel for a single entity;

·         government lawyers practicing in that capacity; and

·         employee lawyers of nonprofit legal services organizations, or volunteer lawyers, where the nonprofit entity provides malpractice insurance coverage at the minimum levels. 

D.     Hearing:

A hearing is not requested.

E.      Expedited Consideration:

Expedited consideration is not requested.