Law.com reports that a legal malpractice insurance carrier may be putting the kibosh on law blogs (blawgs). The
article states that the insurance carrier, Executive Risk Specialty, a unit of Chubb, informed lawyer James Paone II, of Lomurro Davison Eastman & Munoz that lawyer blogging "is not a risk they are interested in undertaking."
Thankfully, this appears to be an isolated case. The situation may even turn out to be more of an issue of the use of appropriate disclaimers than a mandate on blawgs in general. Most of the major blawgs do not seem to have chimed in on the issue as of yet. Perhaps some of them are hoping the issue will simply fade away.
I would like to hear the blawgosphere's take on this, both from readers and writers. My hope is that this is an isolated instance of some "fire bad" insurance company Luddite not taking the time to determine that blogs are simply another interface lawyers have with their clients.
A
key to avoiding legal malpractice claims is communication with the client. What is legal blogging but communication. Blawging not only hones a lawyer's communication skills, but mandates a certain level of understanding of current legal issues in the blawger's particular practice area.
Although this is just a guess, like
patent attorneys, I would assume that top notch blawgers experience significantly fewer malpractice claims. More savvy legal malpractice carriers may actually prefer clients that blog, but are afraid to tip their hands. Perhaps they are hoping to keep their little secret, at least until profit driven competition starts offering blogging discounts to attract what is likely a lower risk class of clientele.
Thanks to
Matt Krigbaum for the heads up on this story.
Brett Troutblawg malpractice insuranceLabels: blawg, insurance, malpractice
