Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Professional liability insurance rates for attorneys at large firms ' currently averaging $4,000 to $10,000 per lawyer ' are likely to rise 35 to 75% in the next year, some experts say.
Smaller firms, which often participate in pooled insurance plans, will more likely see increases from 25 to 30%. The less drastic increase for these firms would reflect their lower litigation risk, according to Anthony Davis, a New York-based partner at Chicago's Hinshaw & Culbertson. Davis specializes in professional liability issues.
Firms engaged in certain high risk practice areas (eg, patent prosecution and writing opinions on tax shelters) more often face large malpractice claims. Such firms can expect to see the highest rate increases.
Claims experience aside, though, overall insurer profitability problems are contributing to rising rates. Recession-damaged investment portfolios, terrorism claims and corporate scandals all have impaired insurer profitability.
Source: 'Paying a Premium for Law Firm Malpractice Insurance' by Anthony Lin, New York Law Journal, 03-21-2003. Accessible online at http://www.law.com/. Registration may be required.
In First American Title Ins. Co. v. Lawson, 351 N.J. Super. 407 (2002), a New Jersey Appellate Decision allowed rescission of the entire malpractice contract notwithstanding such a clause. On March 3, 2003, the New Jersey Supreme Court justices heard arguments appealing that decision. Plaintiffs' lawyers are asking the NJ high court to maintain its traditionally liberal view of insurance, erring on the side of coverage rather than exclusion.
Source: 'Binding the Firm With the Big Lie' by Michael Booth, New Jersey Law Journal, 03-11-2003. Accessible online at www.law.com. Registration may be required.
Professional liability insurance rates for attorneys at large firms ' currently averaging $4,000 to $10,000 per lawyer ' are likely to rise 35 to 75% in the next year, some experts say.
Smaller firms, which often participate in pooled insurance plans, will more likely see increases from 25 to 30%. The less drastic increase for these firms would reflect their lower litigation risk, according to Anthony Davis, a New York-based partner at Chicago's
Firms engaged in certain high risk practice areas (eg, patent prosecution and writing opinions on tax shelters) more often face large malpractice claims. Such firms can expect to see the highest rate increases.
Claims experience aside, though, overall insurer profitability problems are contributing to rising rates. Recession-damaged investment portfolios, terrorism claims and corporate scandals all have impaired insurer profitability.
Source: 'Paying a Premium for Law Firm Malpractice Insurance' by Anthony Lin,
Source: 'Binding the Firm With the Big Lie' by Michael Booth, New Jersey Law Journal, 03-11-2003. Accessible online at www.law.com. Registration may be required.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
A follow up to the article on a briefing in 'Kousisis v. United States' before the U.S. Supreme Court that considers the viability of the fraudulent inducement theory. Arguments before the Court took place on Dec. 9, and the authors provide an update.
Live streaming has evolved significantly and is a widespread phenomenon for retail, gaming, and influencers but is now providing competitive advantages for leading accounting, management consulting, and other professional services firms and B-to-B companies looking to build their brands and increase business.
A novel legal self-help technique to secure artificial intelligence data and programs is known as Poisoning AI. This technique involves modifying the AI algorithm to intentionally produce specific erroneous results.
In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of whether purchasing market competitors’ search engine keyword terms, known as “conquesting,” constitutes trademark infringement.