Professional Liability Matters - Page 17 of 69

LATEST INSIGHTS

August 30, 2017 • Insurance Products, Professional Liability Matters

Can a Single Lawsuit = Multiple Claims?

Professional liability insurance is necessary to any responsibly-run professional practice. The limits of coverage available under an E&O policy help to protect professionals against financial loss. However, the limits of coverage between different policies do not necessarily offer the same protection, even if the face value would appear to be same. For instance, a policy may specify that costs of defense are included in the limits of coverage, a/k/a “burning limits,” which reduces the amount available to satisfy a judgment or pay a settlement as the case progresses. Generally, a policy will state limits of coverage available for each “claim” made against the insured, as well as aggregate limits that cap the amount of damages if multiple claims are brought. Separate claims are easy to distinguish when separate lawsuits are filed by different parties involving unrelated acts. However, do separate claims exist when a single lawsuit is filed that alleges several different instances of misconduct?

August 23, 2017 • Advertising, Professional Liability Matters

NY Continues Trend of Rebuffing Online Legal Service Providers

New York has joined a growing list of states with ethics boards limiting an attorney’s ability to participate in online legal service providers like Avvo and LegalZoom. Similar to other jurisdictions, the New York ethics board authored an opinion honing in on the so called “marketing fee” charged by Avvo for attorney use of its website. Although the opinion declines to decide a list of other potential ethical issues with the company, it concludes that the “marketing fee” is actually a referral fee in violation of Rule 7.2(a) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.

August 14, 2017 • Employment Practices Liability, Professional Liability Matters

High Times: Accommodating Marijuana Use at Work

Marijuana laws are evolving in the US. Marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substances Act, and has no accepted medical use under federal law. However, 29 states and Washington, D.C. have passed laws that decriminalized medical or recreational marijuana use. Nonetheless, many employers have longstanding zero tolerance drug use policies. The question remains, how should employers reconcile their internal policies with the laws requiring employers to accommodate employees with certain medical conditions? The answer is hazy.

August 8, 2017 • Ethics, Professional Liability Matters

Lawyers: Don’t Battle for the Throne

Many business deals begin with a handshake or a quiet conversation. Corporate America is filled with side deals and compromise and promises. Often, these arrangements are perfectly acceptable. But, the intersection between business and politics is a different animal; there are strict regulations regarding governmental contracts and bids and proposals. Transparency is key. Attorneys engaged by governmental contractors must be careful. The recent indictment of a Pennsylvania mayor and an outside attorney in what is being alleged as a pay-to-play scheme is a reminder of the fine line attorneys must walk. In addition to the target-attorney being named, the indictment is littered with references to other attorneys allegedly involved in the scheme. This involvement spans from contributions to the mayor’s various campaigns to presence at meetings to discuss city contracts. While many clients may battle for the throne, attorneys must steer clear of even the appearance of impropriety.

August 3, 2017 • Employment Practices Liability, Professional Liability Matters

Loser Pays: Risks of Civil Rights Claims

Federal civil rights actions are somewhat unique in that they allow the prevailing party to be granted “reasonable attorney’s fees.” An employer on the wrong side of a decision or verdict could leave it paying (a) damages; (b) its attorney’s fees and (c) its adversary’s attorney’s fees. But what are “reasonable” attorney fees? In Sommerfield v. City of Chicago, the Seventh Circuit shed some light on this important question.

July 31, 2017 • Accountants, Experts, Professional Liability Matters

Be an Expert with CPA Experts through the AICPA Code

Most jurisdictions require that a plaintiff establish allegations of accounting malpractice through expert testimony. Moreover, accounting experts are often relied upon to establish damages. Accordingly, the vast majority of litigators, even those outside of the malpractice community, will encounter a CPA expert witness. This may be daunting for attorneys. Fortunately, there’s a handy, but underutilized, guide. The special reports to the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct include ethical standards required of every CPA. The reports provide a readymade guide for evaluating the efficacy and admissibility of a CPA expert’s testimony. Using these standards as a benchmark should help practitioners retain and oppose an accounting expert.

July 14, 2017 • General, Professional Liability Matters

Seeking Your Nomination

Attention blog readers! This year, the ABA Journal is publishing their first ever “Web 100” celebrating the best of the legal industry on the web. In order to be named, we’ll need your help. For years, Professional Liability Matters has been your source for trends, regulations, decisions, and breaking news impacting the professional liability community. Our goal is — and always has been — to educate you about the professional liability landscape and provide resources to help professionals avoid pitfalls and to defend those professionals in the event of a lawsuit. If you feel Professional Liability Matters is one of the best legal blogs today, click here to nominate us. The nomination deadline for the contest is July 30th.

July 11, 2017 • Employment Practices Liability, Professional Liability Matters

Accommodation for the Mark of the Beast

Most employers know of the requirement to adjust any aspect of the working environment which may conflict with an employee’s religious beliefs. At the federal level, under Title VII, an employer must make reasonable accommodation for the religious observances of its employees, short of incurring an undue hardship. But what are religious accommodations? What proof may an employer request in order to establish that the employee is being sincere? The 4th Circuit recently examined a religious accommodation scenario that ended in an award of nearly $600,000 in damages and other benefits to the employee.

July 6, 2017 • Employment Practices Liability, Professional Liability Matters, Technology

The ADA and the Internet

Most employers and business owners are generally aware of the requirements set forth by the ADA to accommodate accessibility to buildings and facilities by individuals with disabilities. These guidelines may impact the type of material used or the design of entrances, doorways and the like. However, how many business owners understand that these regulations also govern the Internet? The advancement of technology continues to make it easier for consumers to purchase goods and services without venturing outside. While websites allow companies to market to more consumers, the use of Internet services also expose employers and business owners to liability of the site isn’t compliant with the ADA. The Southern District of Florida addressed this issue in Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.

June 27, 2017 • Miscellaneous Professionals, Professional Liability Matters

High Court Hands Victory to Secondary Debt Market

In Justice Neil Gorsuch’s first written opinion for the Supreme Court, he handed down a major victory for the secondary debt market by ruling that debt buyers do not fall under the definition of “debt collector” for purposes of the FDCPA. Under the FDCPA, debt collectors are subject to strict requirements when attempting to collect debts and violating these rules leads to significant liability. Until now, a split among the circuits existed as to whether the term “debt collector” includes entities that purchase debt originally owned by another party. The Supreme Court therefore granted writ in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc. in order to resolve the inconsistent application across jurisdictions.