The Politics of Lawyer Regulation: The Case of Malpractice Insurance
This Article examines the politics of lawyer regulation and considers why some states will adopt lawyer regulation that protects the public, when others will not. It uses the debates over how to regulate uninsured lawyers as a lens through which to examine the question. Clients often cannot recover...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Georgetown journal of legal ethics 2020-09, Vol.33 (4), p.969 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 969 |
container_title | The Georgetown journal of legal ethics |
container_volume | 33 |
creator | Levin, Leslie C |
description | This Article examines the politics of lawyer regulation and considers why some states will adopt lawyer regulation that protects the public, when others will not. It uses the debates over how to regulate uninsured lawyers as a lens through which to examine the question. Clients often cannot recover damages from uninsured lawyers who commit malpractice, even when those lawyers cause serious harm. Yet only two states require that lawyers carry malpractice insurance. This Article uses case studies to examine the ways in which six states recently have addressed the issue of uninsured lawyers to understand this regulatory failure. It uses interest group theory and cultural capture to explain why state supreme courts and legislatures rarely initiate efforts to regulate lawyers in this context, and why lawyer regulation is so dependent on the organized bar. The case studies suggest when some state bars will act to regulate lawyers in this context, and factors that affect whether states will ultimately adopt public-regarding laws. The Article concludes that if courts and legislatures will not initiate or support lawyer regulation that is unpopular with the bar, other means are needed to inject the public's interests into the regulatory process. It suggests two ways to do so. |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2452533211</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A649330115</galeid><sourcerecordid>A649330115</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g1331-15e8ff83834bd08a54a04465cf565837f7eafe39a959f1174f42b82dea130c243</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptzktLxDAQAOAeFFxX_0PAcyVpkjb1ttTXQkWR9Vxm00nN0k3WpkX892ZREKHMYWDmm8dJsmBUsFRKoc6S8xB2lFKhcrVIbjfvSF58b0erA_GG1PD5hQN5xW7qYbTe3ZAjqSDgsf0E_WEAHTWStQvTAE7jRXJqoA94-ZuXydv93aZ6TOvnh3W1qtOOcc5SJlEZo7jiYttSBVIAFSKX2shcKl6YAsEgL6GUpWGsEEZkW5W1CIxTnQm-TK5-9h4G_zFhGJudnwYXTzaZkJnkPGPsT3XQY2Od8WP8eG-Dbla5KDmnjMmo0hnVocMBeu_Q2Fj-569nfIwW91bPDHwD5Lxu_g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2452533211</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Politics of Lawyer Regulation: The Case of Malpractice Insurance</title><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><creator>Levin, Leslie C</creator><creatorcontrib>Levin, Leslie C</creatorcontrib><description>This Article examines the politics of lawyer regulation and considers why some states will adopt lawyer regulation that protects the public, when others will not. It uses the debates over how to regulate uninsured lawyers as a lens through which to examine the question. Clients often cannot recover damages from uninsured lawyers who commit malpractice, even when those lawyers cause serious harm. Yet only two states require that lawyers carry malpractice insurance. This Article uses case studies to examine the ways in which six states recently have addressed the issue of uninsured lawyers to understand this regulatory failure. It uses interest group theory and cultural capture to explain why state supreme courts and legislatures rarely initiate efforts to regulate lawyers in this context, and why lawyer regulation is so dependent on the organized bar. The case studies suggest when some state bars will act to regulate lawyers in this context, and factors that affect whether states will ultimately adopt public-regarding laws. The Article concludes that if courts and legislatures will not initiate or support lawyer regulation that is unpopular with the bar, other means are needed to inject the public's interests into the regulatory process. It suggests two ways to do so.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1041-5548</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: Georgetown University Law Center</publisher><subject>Attorneys ; Bar associations ; Case studies ; Influence ; Laws, regulations and rules ; Legal malpractice ; Malpractice ; Prevention ; Regulation ; State court decisions ; Unauthorized practice of law</subject><ispartof>The Georgetown journal of legal ethics, 2020-09, Vol.33 (4), p.969</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Georgetown University Law Center</rights><rights>Copyright Georgetown University Law Center Fall 2020</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Levin, Leslie C</creatorcontrib><title>The Politics of Lawyer Regulation: The Case of Malpractice Insurance</title><title>The Georgetown journal of legal ethics</title><description>This Article examines the politics of lawyer regulation and considers why some states will adopt lawyer regulation that protects the public, when others will not. It uses the debates over how to regulate uninsured lawyers as a lens through which to examine the question. Clients often cannot recover damages from uninsured lawyers who commit malpractice, even when those lawyers cause serious harm. Yet only two states require that lawyers carry malpractice insurance. This Article uses case studies to examine the ways in which six states recently have addressed the issue of uninsured lawyers to understand this regulatory failure. It uses interest group theory and cultural capture to explain why state supreme courts and legislatures rarely initiate efforts to regulate lawyers in this context, and why lawyer regulation is so dependent on the organized bar. The case studies suggest when some state bars will act to regulate lawyers in this context, and factors that affect whether states will ultimately adopt public-regarding laws. The Article concludes that if courts and legislatures will not initiate or support lawyer regulation that is unpopular with the bar, other means are needed to inject the public's interests into the regulatory process. It suggests two ways to do so.</description><subject>Attorneys</subject><subject>Bar associations</subject><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Influence</subject><subject>Laws, regulations and rules</subject><subject>Legal malpractice</subject><subject>Malpractice</subject><subject>Prevention</subject><subject>Regulation</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><subject>Unauthorized practice of law</subject><issn>1041-5548</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNptzktLxDAQAOAeFFxX_0PAcyVpkjb1ttTXQkWR9Vxm00nN0k3WpkX892ZREKHMYWDmm8dJsmBUsFRKoc6S8xB2lFKhcrVIbjfvSF58b0erA_GG1PD5hQN5xW7qYbTe3ZAjqSDgsf0E_WEAHTWStQvTAE7jRXJqoA94-ZuXydv93aZ6TOvnh3W1qtOOcc5SJlEZo7jiYttSBVIAFSKX2shcKl6YAsEgL6GUpWGsEEZkW5W1CIxTnQm-TK5-9h4G_zFhGJudnwYXTzaZkJnkPGPsT3XQY2Od8WP8eG-Dbla5KDmnjMmo0hnVocMBeu_Q2Fj-569nfIwW91bPDHwD5Lxu_g</recordid><startdate>20200922</startdate><enddate>20200922</enddate><creator>Levin, Leslie C</creator><general>Georgetown University Law Center</general><scope>ILT</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200922</creationdate><title>The Politics of Lawyer Regulation: The Case of Malpractice Insurance</title><author>Levin, Leslie C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g1331-15e8ff83834bd08a54a04465cf565837f7eafe39a959f1174f42b82dea130c243</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Attorneys</topic><topic>Bar associations</topic><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Influence</topic><topic>Laws, regulations and rules</topic><topic>Legal malpractice</topic><topic>Malpractice</topic><topic>Prevention</topic><topic>Regulation</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><topic>Unauthorized practice of law</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Levin, Leslie C</creatorcontrib><collection>LegalTrac</collection><jtitle>The Georgetown journal of legal ethics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Levin, Leslie C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Politics of Lawyer Regulation: The Case of Malpractice Insurance</atitle><jtitle>The Georgetown journal of legal ethics</jtitle><date>2020-09-22</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>969</spage><pages>969-</pages><issn>1041-5548</issn><abstract>This Article examines the politics of lawyer regulation and considers why some states will adopt lawyer regulation that protects the public, when others will not. It uses the debates over how to regulate uninsured lawyers as a lens through which to examine the question. Clients often cannot recover damages from uninsured lawyers who commit malpractice, even when those lawyers cause serious harm. Yet only two states require that lawyers carry malpractice insurance. This Article uses case studies to examine the ways in which six states recently have addressed the issue of uninsured lawyers to understand this regulatory failure. It uses interest group theory and cultural capture to explain why state supreme courts and legislatures rarely initiate efforts to regulate lawyers in this context, and why lawyer regulation is so dependent on the organized bar. The case studies suggest when some state bars will act to regulate lawyers in this context, and factors that affect whether states will ultimately adopt public-regarding laws. The Article concludes that if courts and legislatures will not initiate or support lawyer regulation that is unpopular with the bar, other means are needed to inject the public's interests into the regulatory process. It suggests two ways to do so.</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>Georgetown University Law Center</pub></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1041-5548 |
ispartof | The Georgetown journal of legal ethics, 2020-09, Vol.33 (4), p.969 |
issn | 1041-5548 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2452533211 |
source | HeinOnline Law Journal Library |
subjects | Attorneys Bar associations Case studies Influence Laws, regulations and rules Legal malpractice Malpractice Prevention Regulation State court decisions Unauthorized practice of law |
title | The Politics of Lawyer Regulation: The Case of Malpractice Insurance |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T10%3A15%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Politics%20of%20Lawyer%20Regulation:%20The%20Case%20of%20Malpractice%20Insurance&rft.jtitle=The%20Georgetown%20journal%20of%20legal%20ethics&rft.au=Levin,%20Leslie%20C&rft.date=2020-09-22&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=969&rft.pages=969-&rft.issn=1041-5548&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA649330115%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2452533211&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A649330115&rfr_iscdi=true |