Do In-House Counsel Need Malpractice Insurance?
In addition to potential liability to their employers, in-house counsel could at times be liable to others. For example, in-house counsel often perform pro bono legal services for clients unaffiliated with their employer. If one of those matters is botched, a legal malpractice claim could arise.
March 05, 2018 at 01:00 PM
5 minute read
Now that you are working as an in-house counsel, you no longer need to worry about liability for malpractice or buying malpractice insurance, right?
Maybe. Or maybe not. If you make a critical legal error, your employer will probably just fire you. But what about potential claims by third-parties, such as creditors or shareholders?
The risk of being sued for malpractice is not merely theoretical. In addition to potential liability to their employers, in-house counsel could at times be liable to others. For example, in-house counsel often perform pro bono legal services for clients unaffiliated with their employer. If one of those matters is botched, a legal malpractice claim could arise.
Malpractice claims could also be asserted by co-workers in some circumstances. In Yanez v Plummer, 221 Cal. App. 4th 180, 221 Cal. Rptr. 3d 309 (2013), an in-house counsel represented both his employer and an employee at a deposition. The in-house counsel did not inform the employee of the conflicts of interests between the employer and employee and did not obtain written consent to represent the employee despite the conflicts. After the deposition, the employer fired the employee based, at least in part, on the employee's testimony at the deposition. The employee then sued the in-house counsel for malpractice.
Even if a malpractice claim is successfully defeated, the cost of defense could be financially crippling. So what can in-house counsel do to protect themselves? In Georgia, there are at least two viable liability protections for in-house counsel.
Indemnity Agreements
Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8(h) prohibits a lawyer from making “an agreement prospectively limiting the lawyer's liability to a client for malpractice unless permitted by law and the client is independently represented in making the agreement.” The purpose of the rule is to protect clients by preventing lawyers from using their position to take advantage of clients and remove any negative consequences for their malpractice.
So does this rule prohibit “hold harmless” agreements between in-house counsel and their employers? No. According to Georgia Formal Advisory Opinion No. 05-2, such “hold harmless” agreements are ethical when three criteria are met when:
- the employer makes an informed business judgment that such an agreement is preferable to malpractice insurance;
- the agreement is done on advice of counsel;
- and the agreement is permitted by law.
Opinion 05-2 states that consultation with in-house counsel satisfies the “advice of counsel” requirement under Rule 1.8(h) for two reasons. First, the superior position of the client as the employer and the typical sophistication of such an employer eliminates most concerns. Second, because the in-house counsel, as an employee, is subject to discharge by the employer, she does not avoid the negative consequences of malpractice.
Insurance
A typical directors and officers (D&O) policy does not necessarily cover malpractice claims against in-house counsel. Coverage will likely depend on the allegations made against the in-house lawyer. Many D&O policies either exclude or do not include legal services or legal advice. If the claim is clearly based on business advice, the D&O policy will probably apply. If based on legal advice provided by the in-house attorney, coverage may be denied. Also, any D&O policies would likely not cover lower level in-house lawyers.
One option for in-house counsel is employed lawyers professional liability coverage (ELP), which is basically malpractice insurance for in-house attorneys. Typically, an ELP policy would not apply if the in-house lawyer is sued by his or her employer. But the policy would help protect the in-house lawyer from suits by third parties, such as co-workers, shareholders or creditors. These policies can also provide protection from suits by a pro bono client, bar grievance proceedings, and other law-practice related claims.
ELP coverage can be purchased as a stand-alone policy or as a coverage extension to a D&O policy. If purchased as an endorsement to the employer's D&O policy, the lawyer needs to assess risk of not having full coverage. For example, if coverage is added as an endorsement to the D&O policy, the ELP shares the coverage limits with all other officers and directors of the company. So if the D&O policy is depleted by a large claim, then the in-house counsel risks being personally exposed for legal malpractice claims.
As with any insurance policy, in-house counsel need to consider the scope of the coverage and carefully analyze any exclusions, conditions, definitions, and ambiguous language. They should also be aware that some policies have diminishing limits, i.e., the cost of defense diminishes the coverage limit. Such a policy may leave the lawyer underinsured, if defense costs are high.
Conclusion
In-house counsel believing they no longer need to worry about liability for legal malpractice leave themselves at risk. While the risk may be low, the financial downside could be devastating. Entering into a hold harmless agreement with an employer and also obtaining employed lawyers coverage is a sound belt-and-suspenders approach to protect against loss for legal malpractice.
Jonathan E. Hawkins is executive vice president and general counsel at Village Park Senior Living. He is also of counsel at the Atlanta firm of Krevolin & Horst, where he provides general, business, and ethics counsel to lawyers and law firms.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGa. Appellate Judges Mull Landlord Responsibility in Premises Liability Case Involving Child Shooting
Corporate Lawyer Accused of Extortion Pushes Back Against $3.7M Judgment
6 minute readMetLife Attorney's Switch to Nelson Mullins Continues String of In-House Moves to Law Firms
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1What to Know About Naming a Law Firm
- 2Texas Shows the Way Forward in Resolving Mass Tort Gridlock
- 3Ninth Circuit Rules on Inherent Authority and FRCP 37(e)
- 4Where CFPB Enforcement Stops Short on Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
- 5Appellate Court's Decision on Public Employee Pension Eligibility Helps the Judiciary
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250