THE FLORIDA BAR TRIAL LAWYERS SECTION

Vol. XXXVII, No. 2 November 2007www.flatls.org

Chair’s Message By Bradley E. Powers, Chair, Trial Lawyers Section

  The  Executive Council of the Trial Lawyers  Section continues its efforts to provide high level and timely Continu-ing Legal Education for its members and others. We also con-tinue  to  keep  our eye  on  the  legisla-

tive arena to promote the interests of trial lawyers and judges and to insure that every citizen’s right to access to the courts is protected. I am honored to be associated with the volunteers that 

make up your Executive Council, and I pledge to you that we will continue to work hard to uphold the fine tradition of the Trial Lawyers Section.  The legislature will be in session by the time you read this column, however, your Executive Council has been tak-ing the pulse of the various legislative bodies  for months now. Friday morn-ing conference calls with the Section’s extraordinary lobbyist, Arthur “Buddy” Jacobs, keeps  the Council abreast of any potential  issues  that  effect  the Section or access to the courts. To date, it  appears  that  the  legislature  has 

See “Proper Care,” page 15

continued, page 2

AdvocateThe

THE PROPER CARE AND FEEDING OF CLIENTSby Stephen Hayne*

  Practicing law must be the best job in the world.  Why else are so many best selling books, movies,  and  television shows devoted to our profession?  And where else could we get paid so much for essentially, well,  standing around talking?   No wonder everybody hates us but wants to be us at the same time!  Despite its obvious benefits, it is a tough business.  To keep the wolves at bay, you have to get clients in the door.  Then you have to sign them up.  Then you have to get them to pay a lot of money.  Then you have to tell them bad news.  Then you have to make sure they  leave pleased with what you did for them.  Doing all that ain’t easy.  Every once in a while I hear friends complain, “You know,  the practice  of law would be great if it weren’t for the clients.”    It’s  sometimes  true: Client relations  can be  the hardest part  of the business.  But there are some basic steps you can take to make it a lot easier and more gratifying  for both yourself and your clients.  First: recognize that clients usually come to us in terrible distress – afraid, confused,  ashamed, defiant,  and an-gry.   Many lawyers are uncomfortable dealing with their distress.   After all, it’s really quite irrelevant to the legal problem, isn’t it?  No, it’s not, and it is also critical to 

what kind of  relationship  the  lawyer and client are going to have, from begin-ning to end.  The failure to appreciate and empathize with the client’s psycho-logical struggle will be a barrier to good client relations, no matter how brilliant the  lawyer  or  fantastic  the  result,  if there is a single prerequisite, a single key to keeping clients happy, it is seeing them as someone who is suffering first, and as someone with a  legal problem second.   Doing so offers the client the 

most fundamental component of a good lawyer/client relationship: trust.  Trust that the lawyer is on the client’s side no matter what the client did, no matter how worthless  the client  feels.   Trust that no matter how ugly  it  gets,  the lawyer won’t cut and run.  Consider what  the  client  is  expe-riencing when he walks  in your door: “There’s a monster trying to break down my door, it wants to destroy me and I’m 

Parental Alienation Syndrome - junk science or legitimate excuse? .......................................................3The four theories holding defense counsel liable to insurers for malpractice are all problematic ...........4Do apologies really work? .......................................................................................................................8Is the modern day, technologically proficient lawyer better for clients? .............................................................10

INSIDE:

2

been primarily  focused  on property insurance  and  tax  issues,  however, I  can almost guarantee you that  the session will not pass without a number of proposed bills that potentially effect your life as a trial lawyer. Many thanks to Buddy  for keeping  the Executive Council  informed of  the goings-on  in Tallahassee.  The  CLE  Committee,  chaired  by Robert E. Mansbach, Jr., of Orlando, has done an excellent job with updating the courses historically put on by the Section. Education of our members and future trial lawyers is of primary im-portance to the Section, and we all need to thank the experienced trial lawyers and judges that volunteer their time to educate the rest of us. Many thanks to John W. Salmon of Miami and John Pankauski  of West Palm Beach  for 

chairing  the ADR Seminar held  in January and Edward K. Cheffy  of Naples for his hard work on the Civil Trial Certification and Review Course held in February. The Medi-cal Malpractice Seminar was held in March under the direction of Glenn Burton of Tampa and Tom Master-son of St. Petersburg. I highly recom-mend the Florida Medical Malpractice Handbook published by The Florida Bar and the brain child of Glenn and Tim. Robert C. Palmer, Ill of Pen-sacola and Glenn Burton of Tampa are ready to roll with the Advanced Trial Advocacy Program held at the University of Florida College of Law on May 8 – 12, 2007. The faculty for this interactive trial seminar  is made up of state and federal trial court judges in addition to excellent trial  lawyers from around the state. The course has been approved as a trial credit for re-certification purposes by the Board of 

Legal Specialization and Education in addition to providing excellent training for those who have had some difficulty getting their cases to trial.  The Section  is particularly proud of our partnership with  the Chester Bedell Memorial Foundation. The 2007 Chester Bedell Memorial Mock Trial Competition  was  held  in  Miami  in January. This program provides  law students from throughout the State of Florida with experience in developing and utilizing trial skills in a trial set-ting before federal, circuit and county court judges with practicing attorneys providing feedback to the participants and scoring each round. I assure you that nothing  feels better  than giving back to law students and budding trial lawyers, and I encourage you to par-ticipate.  Jonathan Proctor Lynn and Eileen Tilghman Moss of Miami ran  another  great  competition  this year. The Section also partners with the Foundation putting on  the Trial Lawyers/Chester Bedell Foundation Luncheon at the Florida Bar Conven-tion. The luncheon focuses on the inde-pendence of the American lawyer, and we look forward to hearing this year’s luncheon speaker, Lt. Commander Charles D. Swift. Lt. Commander Swift  is assigned  in the Office of  the Chief Defense Counsel in the Depart-ment of Defense Office of Military Com-missions and  is currently detailed to represent Salim Ahmed Hamdan who is facing trial by military commission.  The Section continues with its an-nual update of the ‘Handbook on Dis-covery Practice” and the “Guidelines for Professional Conduct” which should be required reading for all Florida trial lawyers. Both of these useful resourc-es can be found at the Trial Lawyers Section website  ( maintained under the watchful eye of Frank Bedell of Orlando. Many thanks to Professor Michael Flynn for his hard work in coordinating and editing this newslet-ter, The Advocate.  The Trial Lawyers Section continues to be one of the strongest and most re-spected sections of the Bar. That would not be possible without the work of our Section Administrator, Connie Stew-art, and our tremendous volunteers. I thank you on behalf of the Executive Council  for  the opportunity  to be of service.

— Bradley E. Powers, Chair

CHAIR’S MESSAGEfrom page 1

The Advocate is prepared and published by the Trial Lawyers Section of The Florida Bar.

Bradley E. Powers, Tampa ............................................................................ChairRobert C. Palmer III, Pensacola ..........................................................Chair-electRobert C. Palmer III, Pensacola ............................................................ SecretaryMark P. Buell, Tampa ........................................................ Immediate Past ChairMichael Flynn, Ft. Lauderdale ................................................................... EditorConnie Stewart, Tallahassee ..........................................Program AdministratorClay Shaw ........................................................................ Graphic Design/Layout

Statement or expressions of opinion are those of the editor and contributors and not of The Floida Bar or the Section.

CHANGE YOURADDRESS ON-LINE!

Log on to The Florida Bar’s website (www.flabar.org) and use the form found under “Find a Lawyer” and then “Attorney Search.” The form is also found under “Member Services.”

Ethics Questions?Call The Florida Bar’s

ETHICS HOTLINE

1/800/235-8619

�

JUNK SCIENCE OR TRUTH?‘Parental Alienation Syndrome’ Increasingly Cited in Child Custody Fightsby: Amy Hetzner*

  The last time the Delafield salesman saw his three younger children out from under the eye of court-appointed super-visors was  for an after-school goodbye nearly a year ago.  He has never seen the 27-page report that he says took them away from him.  Sealed in the file for his divorce case, he has only heard of  the accusation  it whispers about him: parental alienation syndrome.  And ever since it was writ-ten by a court-appointed therapist and given to a family court judge, the father has struggled to fight an accusation that some say is becoming more common in custody cases, that of alienating a child against a parent.  “I’ve been tried, convicted and thrown away,” said the father, who is not being named to protect his children’s  identi-ties.  Similar  scenes  are  playing  out  in courtrooms across the country, drawing attention  to a psychological phenom-enon that some call a real aspect of cus-tody battles and others call a potentially dangerous excuse for child abusers.  Parental alienation syndrome con-tends that children can be manipulated by one parent into rejecting and falsely accusing another parent.  The  concept  has  not  undergone enough scientific testing to be listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders used by mental health professionals.  But that hasn’t stopped its use in courtrooms or its support from some therapists.  Critics say that parental alienating syndrome capitalizes on  the difficulty inherent  in proving abuse,  especially among very young and non-verbal chil-dren.  “PAS is an evil device used by immor-al  lawyers, psychologists and  judges,” said Jim Shields, executive director of Houston-based  Justice  for  Children, which has intervened in court in opposi-tion to parental alienation arguments.  “This syndrome is bogus.”  Physical evidence is rare in children who have been sexually abused,  said Lynn K. Sheets, medical director of the 

Child Protection Center at Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin.   She estimated that, even with penetration, 95% of girls who have been sexually assaulted would have normal physical examinations.  Without that sort of evidence, abuse claims are greeted with some skepti-cism,  especially when  there’s a whiff that they could be used to gain the upper hand in a custody dispute, law enforce-ment officials say.  But Douglas Darnall, an Ohio psy-chologist and a specialist  in parental alienation, called claims that parental alienation  syndrome  is nothing more than junk science a “diversion.”  “The  issue  is not  really  the  label,” Darnall said.  “The issue is the pattern of behavior.”  A parent who denigrates a  former partner, schedules activities to interfere with  the other parent’s plans,  listens in on phone calls and acts like a child’s rescuer from the other parent could be guilty of alienating behavior, he said.  If the parent  is successful,  the child will develop an irrational hatred for the oth-er parent and an inability to forgive.  “Anybody who has dealt in any depth with custody cases will have seen alien-ation,”  Darnall said.  The first time Randi Erickson, a Hud-son psychologist, presented a report to a family court judge diagnosing a case of parental alienation syndrome was about six years ago.  Of the judge’s response, she said, “I  can’t  remember  the exact statement, but it had to do with the fact that that was exactly what he was see-ing.”  The American Psychological Asso-ciation has no official position on  the syndrome.  But those involved in cases in which alienation has been alleged have different takes on its use and its acceptance by the courts.  Even though two psychologists have issued reports citing parental alienation syndrome  by  his  ex-wife  and  recom-mended he gain full custody of their two daughters, one Webster parent said of-ficials in Burnett County have not taken it seriously.

  “They think it’s a big joke and it’s a made-up thing,” said the father, who has been acquitted of   battery and whose child-molestation  charges  have  been dismissed, part of what he thinks is his ex-wife’s campaign against him.  If  the  psychologists  had  not  men-tioned the syndrome “and just said my ex-wife was psychotic, delusional and all this and needs help – never once men-tioned this disease – it would have to-tally probably been different,” he said.  But an Oconomowoc mother, who said her older daughter first disclosed when she was 2 that she had been assaulted by her father, expressed frustration in a system that has not charged her ex-husband with a crime and has accused her of alienating their children against him.  She acknowledges that some of what has transpired over her  four-year cus-tody battle  looks bad  for her.   Several witnesses hear her tell her former hus-band that he would not see his children again the day before she said her daugh-ter reported abuse.  She also is on her sixth attorney and has  switched her daughter’s therapist several times.  The mother  said her actions have been misinterpreted by officials.  “Every single thing that I’ve done is to protect these girls, because (the courts are) not doing it,” she said.  “And, instead of looking to protect them, I look in (the court’s) eyes, as more vengeful.”  As  for  the Delafield  father, he said he continues to be blamed for the bad relationship between his children and their mother even though he has been allowed only supervised visits with his children over the past year.  “They want me  to  control  the kids when I don’t have control of the kids,” he said.  “I can’t do that.  And it’s just maddening, is what it is. . . .This whole theory that the psychologist should have that much power is unbelievable.”______________________________ *Amy Hetzner is a staff member of the Milwau-kee Journal Sentinel.  This article is reprinted from the October 2, 2006 edition of the Milwau-kee Journal Sentinel(c)

�

LEGAL BASES FOR CLAIMS BY LIABILITY INSURERS AGAINST DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR MALPRACTICEBy William H. Black, Jr. And Sean O’Mahoney*

  Although the issue is relatively new to American jurisprudence, the major-ity of states permit a liability insurer to  sue defense  counsel  for negligent representation in an underlying action.  The  theories under which  the  insur-er may assert such a claim, however, vary substantially.  Four theories have emerged:  the  tripartite  relationship theory, the third-party beneficiary the-ory, the equitable subrogation theory, and the Restatement theory.  Whether a court will allow a claim of negligent representation and under what theory depends largely on its characterization of the relationship between the insurer, its insured, and the insured’s attorney and the circumstances under which the attorney was retained.  Courts  that  have  disallowed  an insurer’s suit against an insured’s at-torney generally have rejected one or more of  these  theories by construing the attorney-client  relationship nar-rowly.   These courts have also  taken the  position  that  public  policy  con-cerns–protecting the  legal profession and  the  sacrosanct  relationship be-tween attorney and client–outweigh considerations of equity in transferring the loss an insurer may have suffered as a result of attorney malpractice to a potentially negligent attorney.

The Four Theories

The tripartite relationship theory.  Courts that recognize the “tripartite relationship” between the insurer, the insured, and counsel consider the  in-surer and the insured to be co-clients of the firm in the absence of a conflict of interest.1  Under this approach, the attorney hired by an insurer to defend an action against  the  insured  owes fiduciary duties to two clients: the in-surer and the insured.2  Consequently, when, in accordance with its contrac-tual obligation, an insurer hires coun-sel to defend its insured, the retained attorney owes a duty  of  care  to  the insurer that will support an indepen-

dent right on the part of the insurer to bring a legal malpractice action for acts committed in the representation of the insured, provided that the interests of the insured and the insurer are not in conflict.3

  Courts  have,  however,  employed varying  approaches  to  determining whether such a relationship between the  insurer and defense  counsel  ex-ists.  For example, when determining whether a  law firm represented both an insurer and its insured, in Marten Transport, Ltd. v. Hartford Specialty Co.,4  the Wisconsin  Supreme  Court based  its analysis  on agency princi-ples  derived  from  the  Restatement (Second) of Agency and held that the relationship between the law firm and insurer depended upon the  intention of  the parties.5   By contrast,  the Su-preme  Court  of  Minnesota  rejected the application of Minnesota’s general rules regarding formation of an attor-ney-client relationship under contract and  tort  theories  in  this  context  in Pine Island Farmers Co-Op v. Erstad & Riemer, P.A.6 because of the unique circumstances of the defense counsel’s “dual  representation.”7   The court  in Pine Island Farmers explained that “in light of the insurer’s right to control the defense of claims, exchanges of  infor-mation between defense counsel and insurer–including exchanges in which the insurer seeks, receives, and relies on legal advice from defense counsel–are bound to occur.”8  To hold that these exchanges were sufficient to create an attorney-client  relationship between defense counsel and  the  insurer,  the court concluded, would result in a rule that defense  counsel  represents  the insurer  in virtually every  insurance case and would allow dual represen-tation without  the  insured’s  consent or knowledge of the risks inherent in such a situation.9  Accordingly, the Min-nesota court opted to supplement the general rules governing the formation of an attorney-client relationship with the following additional requirements: 

(1) the absence of a conflict of interest between the insured and the insurer, and (2) the express consent of the in-sured, after consultation with counsel, to dual representation.10  Without the consultation and express consent of the insured,  the court explained, defense counsel  represents only  the  insured, and the insurer does not have standing to maintain a malpractice suit against defense counsel on the basis of an al-leged attorney-client relationship.11

The third-party beneficiary theory.   A few courts have based their hold-ings  that  an  insurer  has  a  right  of action against defense counsel on the conclusion  that  the  insurer  was  an intended third-party beneficiary of the relationship between the insured and the attorney.12  A third-party beneficia-ry contract typically arises when two parties enter into an agreement with the intent to confer a direct benefit on a third party, allowing the third party to sue on the contract despite a lack of privity.13  This theory is an especially useful vehicle  for a primary  insurer that asserts a claim against counsel for the insured whom it did not retain.14

  The principal point of disagreement among the courts applying this doctrine is the question of the degree of intent required to invoke the doctrine. Most courts require the purported third-par-ty beneficiary to allege and prove that the actual intent of the client to benefit the nonclient was a direct purpose of the transaction.15 For example, in Na-tional Union Insurance Co. v  Dowd & Dowd, P.C.,16the court rejected the ap-plication of the third-party beneficiary rule to find an alleged attorney-client relationship between defense counsel retained by the insured and an excess insurer because the record contained no clear indication that the attorney was retained to benefit the excess insurer.17 In Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Franks, Gerkin & McKenna,18 however, the same court later determined that an  insurer’s mere allegation  that  its 

continued, next page

�

continued, next page

Federal CourtPracticeManual2006

Now On CD!!!

Please contact Gerry Rose at grose@flabar.org or 850-561-5706 for more information or to obtain your copy.

insured  retained  the defendant  law firm to contest a default judgment for which the insurer had been subject to a garnishment action was a sufficient allegation of  third-party beneficiary status,  such  that  the  insurer’s mal-practice claim could survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(6).19 The court held that it was suf-ficient for the insurer to have alleged only  that  if  the attorney retained by the insured had set forth a successful defense  in  the underlying  litigation, the insured would not have been found liable and the insurer would not have had any indemnity obligations.20

The equitable subrogation theory   Under the theory of equitable sub-rogation, an insurer may assert its in-sured’s claims for malpractice against counsel retained to defend the insured. Subrogation  is predicated, generally, on the equitable doctrine that one who has indemnified another in pursuance of the indemnitor’s obligation to do so is entitled to the means of redress held by the party  indemnified against the person causing the loss.21 The rationale is  that  injustice should be prevented and  the economic burden of  tortious conduct should be shifted to those re-sponsible for the loss.22     Accordingly, courts permitting an  insurer  to  sue the insured’s counsel under this theory hold  that  it would be  inequitable  to place the burden of legal malpractice on  the  insurer, “allowing a negligent attorney  to escape  the consequences of his misconduct, merely because the insured  lacks the economic  incentive to sue.”23

  The doctrine of equitable subroga-tion has been employed as a middle course between outright  recognition of  dual  representation  and  permit-ting negligent attorneys to escape the consequences of their conduct merely because no person has both the motive and standing to sue them. As explained by the Supreme Court of Michigan: 

To hold that an attorney-client rela-tionship exists between insurer and defense counsel could  indeed work mischief, yet to hold that a mere com-mercial  relationship  exists would work obfuscation and injustice. The 

gap is best bridged by resort to the doctrine of equitable subrogation to allow recovery by  the  insurer. Eq-uitable subrogation best vindicates the attorney-client relationship and the interests of the insured, properly imposing the social costs of malprac-tice  where  they  belong. Allowing the insurer to stand in the shoes of the  insured under  the doctrine of equitable  subrogation best  serves the public policy underlying the at-torney-client relationship.24

The Restatement theory.  Some courts have adopted the theory set forth in the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers to support holdings that a lawyer designated by an insurer to defend an insured owes a duty of care to the insurer with respect to matters as to which the interests of the insurer and the insured are not in conflict, whether or not the insured is a  co-client of  the  lawyer.25  It  should be noted  that  this  theory closely  re-sembles  the  third-party beneficiary analysis, which arises out of common law, and courts have employed it to al-low an insurer’s malpractice claim to proceed in lieu of determining whether the third-party beneficiary rule is ap-plicable.26

Disallowing Malpractice Suits  Courts holding that an insurer may not maintain a malpractice suit against 

defense counsel  in an underlying ac-tion commonly rely on one or both of the following theories to support that result. First, courts have held that no attorney-client relationship exists be-tween defense counsel and the insurer. Second,  the  courts  frequently  cite a prohibition against assignment of legal malpractice claims to others.

No attorney-client relationship exists between defense counsel and insurer.   Jurisdictions that recognize an at-torney-client relationship in the third-party insurance context only between the insured and the insured’s attorney generally refuse to apply the tripartite relationship theory and the third-party beneficiary theory.27

  Courts refusing to recognize an at-torney-client relationship between the insurer and defense counsel typically note the potential for conflict of inter-est in, for example, cases in which an insured’s exposure exceeds the avail-able insurance coverage, in which the insurer provides a defense subject  to a reservation of rights, or in which an insurer may not have an obligation to indemnify its insured because of a policy defense.28 As the Supreme Court of Minnesota explained in Pine Island Farmers, “[e)ven  the most optimistic view of human nature requires us to realize that an attorney employed by an  insurance company will  slant his 

LEGAL BASESfrom previous page

�

LEGAL BASESfrom previous page

efforts, perhaps unconsciously,  in the interests of his real client-the one who is paying his  fee and  from whom he hopes  to  receive  future business  the insurance company.29

Pubic policy prohibits assignment of legal malpractice claims  Courts that do not recognize an at-torney-client relationship between the insurer and the insured’s counsel are frequently forced to address the related issue of whether attorney malpractice claims are assignable in order to per-mit the insurer’s assertion of the claim through  equitable  subrogation.  Be-cause many jurisdictions prohibit as-signment of legal malpractice claims on public policy grounds, such as the risk of  jeopardizing “the highly  confiden-tial and fiduciary relationship existing between attorney and client,”30  these courts usually reject the insurer’s as-serted standing as equitable subrogee to assert a legal malpractice claim.31

Conclusion  Central to the issue of whether an insurer may sue counsel  retained  to defend its  insured is the court’s view of  the  significance and  scope  of  the tripartite  relationship. Determining the effects of the interplay of attorney, insured, and insurer in the third-party liability  insurance  context  requires balancing the risk of conflict of inter-est against the potential social cost of insulating negligent attorneys  from accountability  because  the  insured “client,” who  is  often not ultimately responsible  for the  judgment entered against it, generally lacks a fiscal in-centive to challenge the attorney’s con-duct. As illustrated above, courts that have  already  defined  the  tripartite relationship to recognize counsel’s fidu-ciary duties to both the insured and the insurer appear  to have  little  trouble allowing  the  insurer,  as  coclient,  to pursue a claim against defense counsel. These courts have already determined that the overarching ethical and public policy concerns in the tripartite rela-tionship permit the insurer, as a mat-ter of law, to stand on virtually equal footing with the insured vis-a-vis the 

attorney. The  tripartite  relationship theory and the third-party beneficiary theory  are  accordingly  appropriate bases upon which insurers may assert direct rights to relief against defense counsel.  Courts that construe the attorney-client relationship narrowly to exclude the  insurer, having rejected the  legal bases  for a remedy, have been  forced to find other bases as they weigh the sanctity of the attorney-client relation-ship against the prospect of foreclosing compensation for tortious conduct. The resulting  theories,  equitable  subro-gation and  the Restatement  theory, provide  limited methods of ensuring the accountability of the attorney after termination of  representation while preventing the  insurer’s  interference during the representation.  However  their  holdings  are  ulti-mately articulated, most courts agree that  the  tripartite  relationship  be-tween  insured,  insurer, and defense counsel provides a basis for a claim by an insurer against defense counsel. In-surers need to recognize, however, that this  is not universally acknowledged and that they must take care in their pleading to state a claim that contains all of the elements required in the ju-risdiction in which they seek relief.

_________________________________* William Black, Jr. Is a partner in Philadelphia office of the Gibbons Law Firm.  Sean P. Mahoney is an associate  in  the same firm.   This article is  reprinted with permission  from The Brief (Winter 2006)©

Endnotes1.  See generally Gen. Sec. Ins. Co. v. Jordan, Coyne & Savits LLP, 357 E Supp. 2d 951, 956 (E.D. Va. 2005); Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bourlon, 617 S.E.2d 40, 45-46 (N.C. 2005).2.  See Gulf Ins. Co. v. Berger, Kahn, Shafton, Moss, Figler, Simon & Gladstone, 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 534 (2000), rev. denied, No. S087090, 2000 Cal. LEXIS 4323 (Cal. May 17, 2000).3.  See id. at 544. But cf. Grinnell Mut. Reins. Co. v. Franks, Gerkin & McKenna, No. 98-C-6876, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12636, at *12-13 (N.D.111. Aug. 24, 2000) (recognizing tripartite relationship but holding that insurer did not plead direct duty of care supporting  legal malpractice claim against insured’s  counsel because  insurer did not plead that  it had retained the attorneys to defend the insured).4.  533 N.W2d 452 (Wis. 1995).5.  Id. at 455-58.6.  649 N.W2d 444 (Minn. 2002).7.  Id. at 450.8.  Id. at 4519.  Id.10. Id.11. Id. at 451-52.

12. See  generally  Grinnell  Mut.  Reins.  Co.  v. Franks, Gerkin & McKenna, No. 98-C-6876, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12636 (N.D. 111. Aug. 24, 2000).13. See, e.g., Dixon v. Royal Cab,  Inc., 1988 R.1. Super. LEXIS 53, at *8-9 (1988).14. See Grinned, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12636, at *13-14.15. See, e.g., Dixon, 1988 R.I. Super. LEXIS 53, at *9.16. 2 E Supp. 2d 1013 (N.D.111.1998).17. Id. at 1019.18.  No. 98-C-6876, 2000 U.S. Dist. 18.LEXIS 12636 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 24, 2000).19. Id. at * 13-1420. Id.21. See, e.g., Nat’l Union Ins., 2 E Supp. 2d 1013, at 1020.22. See id. at 1021.23. Id. at 1024; see also St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP, 379 E Supp. 2d 183 (D. Mass. 2005); see also  Harleysville Worcester Ins. Co. v.  Silverstein & Hurwitz, P.C., No. 02-7612, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5721, at *14-15 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2005).24. Atlanta Int’1 Ins. Co. v. Bell, 475 N.W.2d 294, 298 (Mich. 1991).25. See generally GEIC0 v. Forbes, No. 99-CV-881, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8446 (E.D. Pa. Jun. 2, 1999); Gen. Sec. Ins. Co. v. Jordan, Coyne & Savits LLP, 357 F Supp. 2d 951, 958 (E.D. Va. 2005) (citing RE-STATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE LAW GOVERN-ING LAVVYERs § 51 (c) cmt. g); Spratley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 78 Pad 603, 607 (Utah 2003) (following Paradigm Ins. Co. v. Langerman Law Offices, PA., 24 Pad 593 (Ariz. 2001) ).26.  Gen. Sec. Ins. Co., 357 F Supp. 2d at 958.27. See generally Essex  Ins. Co. v. Tyler, 309 F Supp. 2d 1270 (D. Colo. 2004); Cont’1 Cas. Co. v. Pullman, Comley, Bradley & Reeves, 929 F  .2d 103 (2d Cir. 1991) (applying Connecticut law); Am. Employers’  Ins. Co. v. Med.   Protective Co., 419 N.W 2d 447 (1988) (rejecting equitable subrogation argument under Michigan law by excess insurer to assert legal malpractice claim because “to hold otherwise would  .  .  . acknowledge a direct duty owed by the insured’s attorney to the excess insurer and would be tantamount to saying that insurance attorneys do not owe their duty of loyalty and zeal-ous representation to the insured client alone”).28. E.g., In re Ugrin, Alexander, Zadick & Higgins, P.C., 2 P.3d 806, 813 (Mont. 2000).29. Pine Island Farmers Co-op v. Erstad & Riemer, PA., 649 N.W 2d 444, 450-51 (Minn. 2002) (quoting U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Louis A. Roser Co., 585 E2d 932, 938 n.5 (8th Cir. 1978)).30.  Essex Ins. Co., 309 F. Supp. 2d at 1273 (quoting Roberts v. Holland & Hart, 857 P2d 492, 496 (Colo. App. 1993) ).31. See, e.g., Am. Employers’ Ins. Co., 419 N.W 2d at 448-49 (rejecting equitable subrogation argu-ment because “[s]uch a holding would... encour-age excess insurers to sue defense attorneys for malpractice whenever they are disgruntled by having to pay within limits of policies to which they  contracted and  for which  they  received premiums. . . [wlere this to occur, we believe that defense attorneys would come to fear such at-tacks, and the attorney-client relationship would be put in jeopardy”); see also Swiss Reins. Am. Corp., Inc. v. Roetzel & Andress, No. 22523, 2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 4332 (Ohio App. Sept. 14, 2005) (“ This Court is persuaded that Ohio’s zealous guarding  of  the attorney-client  relationship compels a holding that equitable subrogation is not available to [the primary insurer seeking to assert a legal malpractice claim]”).

7

The Florida BarMember Benefits

  LEGAL RESEARCHOnline Legal Research Site

FastCase www.fastcase.com 866/773-2782LexisNexis www.lexisONE.com

  COMMERCIAL VENDORSApparel

Jos. A Bank Clothiers (Code: #91861) 800/285-2265•Car Rental

Alamo (Code: #93718) www.alamo.com 800/354-2322Avis (Code: #A421600) www.avis.com 800/331-1212Budget (Code: #Y067600) www.budget.comHertz (Code: #152030) www.hertz.com 800/654-2200National (Code: #5650262) www.national.com 800/227-7368

Computers/SoftwareDell www.dell.com 888/605-3355ProDoc www.prodoc.com 800/759-5418Softmart Corp. www.softmart.com/barWordPerfect Office X3 800/545-1294

Credit Card ProgramBank of America    www.bankofamerica.com/myexpression_banking

800/932-2775 (Nofeeaffinitycreditcard,moneymarkets&CDsatcompetitiveprices.)Express Shipping

DHL (Code: N82-YFLA) www.airborne.com 800/758-8955UPS (Code: P350493) www.ups.com 800/325-7000

Law BooksABA Publications (Code: PAB6EFLB) www.ababooks.orgCCH (Priority Code Y5604) http://tax.cchgroup.com/members/tfb 877/300-5219

Magazine SubscriptionsSubscription Services www.buymags.com 800/289-6247

Office Products & Supplies Pennywise Office Products www.penny-wise.com 800/942-3311Travel

LaQuinta (Code: FLBAR) www.laquinta.com 866/725-1661

  INSURANCEAutomobile Insurance

GEICO www.geico.com 800/368-2734Court and Surety Bonds

JurisCo http://jurisco.com 800/274-2663Individual & Group Insurance

Business Planning Concepts www.memberbenefits.com 800/282-8626

Professional Liability InsuranceFLMIC www.flmic.com 800/633-6458

  THEME PARk CLUBSAnheuser-Busch • Universal Studios Florida • Water Mania[SendrequeststoTheFloridaBarc/oGeorgeDillard.] Rev. 09/07

�

WILL ‘MEA CULPA’ WORK FOR HEALTH PLANS TOO?By Maureen Glabman*

  A few years ago, Kaiser Permanente ex-ecutives approved a daring pilot program at six medical centers in three states. When patients had disappointing outcomes, doc-tors who  took a  communication  course delivered heartfelt, empathetic apologies. If the situation warranted, representatives were dispatched  later  to  follow up with compensation offers.  “We were  thinking we needed a year or  two  to  understand  the  efficacy,  but within six months, we knew it was a win-win,”  says  Douglas  Bonacum,  Kaiser’s vice president for safety management. An “I’m Sorry” policy spread rapidly to all 31 hospitals as well as some clinics. “Doctors sang its praises; patients loved it. It topped our expectations,” Bonacum adds.  The HMO now has a culture of apol-ogy permeating all levels of the organiza-tion, he says. That was evident when the Los Angeles Times reported that Kaiser’s Northern California region president pub-licly apologized to patients who felt their complaints about dangerous delays in care with the company’s new kidney transplant program had fallen on deaf ears. To make amends, Kaiser offered to pay  for  trans-plants at outside hospitals.

Transparency is the issue  Kaiser is engaged in what has become known nationally as the nascent “apology movement,”  an  effort  by  some  doctors, hospitals,  and payers  to  offer  empathy, explanation, and - if necessary - restitution when an adverse incident occurs, or when patients are unhappy about denials  or delays in care. It is sometimes called “full disclosure, early offer.”  Recent published articles indicate that apologies salvage relationships and reduce defense costs.  “Initial evidence now suggests that ad-mission of harm and apologies strengthen, rather than jeopardize, relationships and diminish punitive responses,” writes Aar-on Lazare, MD, Chancellor and Dean at the University of Massachusetts Medical School  in  the September 20, 2006  issue of  the Journal of  the American Medical Association. Further, academic research suggests  that  leaders  overestimate  the costs of apologies and underestimate the 

benefits, reports Harvard lecturer Barbara Kellerman, PhD, in the April 1, 2006 issue of Harvard Business Review.  The apology movement contrasts sharp-ly with “deny and defend” policies in many organizations that discourage plan execu-tives and others from even speaking with harmed patients for fear it may fuel law-suits. Apology proponents say  that such measures perpetuate the perception that HMO leaders are arrogant and callous.  Managed care defense  lawyer Steven Ziegler, JD, recommends apologies to HMO clients under  certain conditions.  In one recent case, a man whose wife had suffered a stroke asked for special home treatments for her. When the treatments were denied by a  regional HMO,  the  couple hired a lawyer and threatened to take the  issue to the press.  Plan executives believed they had com-plied with the terms of the patient’s policy. Nonetheless,  the  medical  director  and Ziegler traveled to the home of the patient, apologized, and made an accommodation within  the  contract. “If  the medical di-rector had not done  that,  it would have escalated,” Ziegler says.  “The apology went a long way toward resolving  the  case quickly. No one was involved in protracted litigation. The hus-band was  so appreciative  someone was willing to acknowledge and take responsi-bility. Most people want to know they are being treated fairly. The best way to do that is to explain things and accept responsibil-ity when things go wrong,” Ziegler says,  Apologies  tend to prevent cases  from going to trial, where verdicts can be un-predictable. In his 11 years filing lawsuits against  HMOs, Theodore  Leopold,  JD, says he hasn’t lost a single case. “They are wonderful cases in front of a jury because every juror has experience dealing with a managed care company and understands how difficult it can be.”  Some  lawyers representing  large na-tional payers are opposed to apologies. “I would not suggest it unless there was solid, empirical evidence that an apology reduces the number of overall claims and the cost of handling the claims,” says Denver law-yer Theodore Laszlo, JD.  The movement is still so new, and hard 

data has come from hospitals and medical liability carriers alone. For example,  the University  of Michigan Health System has had an apology/full disclosure program since 2001. UMHS’s risk manager, Richard Boothman, has reported that the program saved $2.2 million in its first year.  In  testimony before  the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Boothman stated that claims against the institution have dropped every year since the program has been in place despite a considerable increase in clinical activity over  the same period.   Average claim processing  time dropped  from 20 months to nine months. Total reserves for medical malpractice  claims declined by more than two thirds, and average litiga-tion costs have been more than halved.

Reduction in Legal Costs  “The University of Michigan and our institution  have  seen  steep  reductions in  legal  costs  following adoption of dis-closure policies,” writes Albert Wu, MD, MPh, a Johns Hopkins University profes-sor  of  health  and  policy  management, in  the Agency  for Healthcare Research and Quality’s February 2006 report titled “Perspectives on Safety.” Wu asserts that apologies also go along way to advancing the patient safety movement, since part of a prescribed apology is typically a promise that steps will be taken to prevent the er-ror from recurring.Some Initiatives  Some of America’s most venerated in-stitutions have adopted apology policies. They  include 14  teaching hospitals  af-filiated with the Harvard Medical School, such as the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. Others with established poli-cies are at Catholic Healthcare West, San Francisco (42 hospitals), Allina Hospitals and Clinics, (11 hospitals and 66 clinics), and Children’s Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota (2 hospitals).  Providers  are  in  the  forefront,  but carriers  such  as  Copic  (formerly  Colo-rado Physicians Insurance Company, and Northwest Physicians Mutual also support apology programs.  Apology programs got a huge boost from legislative protections enacted mostly  in 

continued, next page

�

the last six years. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia now have “I’m Sorry”  laws  that  shield  contrition  from lawsuits.  The  language  typically  reads:  “Any statement  or  conduct  expressing  apol-ogy, responsibility, or sympathy made by a  health  care  provider  to  a  patient  or patient’s relative relating to injury is in-admissible as  evidence  of  admission of liability or against interest.” Lawyers say “health care provider” may apply to HMOs, depending on how individual states define terms.  There  remain  a  variety  of  opposing opinions on apologies, “It could encourage a plaintiff to reconsider a lawsuit or settle more quickly,” says Jeffrey Liggio, JD, a plaintiffs’ lawyer. “But if an insurer leaves someone with a permanent problem, what is an apology going to do? It doesn’t replace a breadwinner who can no longer work.”  Another plaintiffs’  lawyer, Theodore Leopold, JD, says, “I would have deep con-cerns that an apology is a veiled attempt at  appeasement  while  someone  in  the company  is engaged  in  the same outra-geous conduct.”  There  is  a  middle  ground,  suggests Thomas  Morrow,  MD,  immediate  past president of  the National Association of Managed Care Physicians and a mem-ber of Managed Care’s editorial advisory board. “What I see plan executives saying is,  ‘I’m  sorry you have  to pay more  for your care, but that’s what your employer bought,”’ he says. “It’s a form of empathy and it doesn’t implicate you. If you didn’t say  anything,  I’m  not  sure  where  that leaves you on the humanity scale.”  Carole Houk, JD, a lawyer specializing in  conflict  resolution who helped draft Kaiser’s  full  disclosure  program,  says, “Any  time  there  is a  conflict,  there  is a need  for an apology policy.” The  focus of Kaiser’s program  is on ombudsman/me-diators  trained  in dispute  resolution  to resolve patient  issues equitably to avoid escalation to litigation. Houk claims that of potentially  compensable events man-aged  by  an  ombudsman,  90  percent  to 98 percent will be resolved without legal action. “Participant organizations should see a reduction  in malpractice claims  in the first year,” according to Houk.  Contrarily, a deny-and-defend policy makes providers and, by extension, HMOs vulnerable to litigation since patients per-ceive it as a cover-up, according to Sorry 

Works, a coalition of doctors, lawyers, pa-tient advocates, and insurers that pushes the  apology  movement. The  coalition’s mantra  is  that admissions of error have a powerful ability to diffuse anger, a lead-ing reason that patients file lawsuits. The group devised  its own apology program, which became a pilot program in Illinois and Vermont.

Customer service  Sorry Works “is  nothing  more  than a  good  customer  service  program  that saves your bacon,”  says  the group’s  col-orful  founder and  spokesman, Douglas Wojcieszak.   Apologies fall into two categories: ex-pressions of  sympathy, as  in, “I’m sorry you are hurt,” and expressions of account-ability and remorse, as in “I’m sorry I hurt you.”    While the former can be given im-mediately, the latter should not trip lightly off the tongue until there is a full inves-tigation, experts warn. If it is discovered the institution is not at fault and patients still want  to file suit, meritorious cases are defended vigorously. How an apology is delivered is tricky. An insincere apology may incite patients, according to “Apology in Medical Practice: An Emerging Clinical Skill” in AMA, September 20, 2006.  “I apologize  for whatever happened” doesn’t acknowledge  the offense, writes Aaron  Lazare,  MD.  Using  the  passive voice, “Mistakes were made,” is incorrect too. Worse are unacceptable apologies, as in “The alcohol made me do it,” or arrogant apologies, such as “These things happen to the best of people.”

“Mistakes Were Made”  Who delivers  the apology  is  equally important. “A corporate  tailored apology could  seem  like  a  corporate  Hallmark card,” says Michail Hack, JD, a plaintiffs’ lawyer. If the offense is institutional rather than individual, the top leader (the CEO, for example)  is not necessarily  the best person to extend the apology. Sometimes the institution is better served if someone further down  the organizational  ladder acknowledges the problem and expresses regret, according to Harvard lecturer Kell-erman.

Be Quick about it  For apologies to be effective, they must be delivered swiftly after the incident. Ste-phen Ziegler, JD, a defense lawyer, recalls a case  from a time when apologies were less common. A patient was denied a CAT scan and later found to have a brain tumor. 

Two years  later at a mediation session, plan executives told Ziegler they wanted to apologize, but by then it was too  late. “The plaintiff was very angry that no one accepted responsibility.  It’s very difficult to come in and apologize at that point,” he says. “The defendants - the health plan and the doctors - paid more than they would have if they had acknowledged responsibil-ity earlier.”  The apology movement started to gain steam  because  of  the  perfect  storm:  a burgeoning quality movement,  a medi-cal  liability  crisis, and a spate of books and  articles  suggesting  that  apologies are cheap, they are ethical, and they save money. The origin of  the apology move-ment can be traced to 1987, when Steve Kraman, MD,  then  chief  of  staff  of  the Veterans Affairs Hospital  in Lexington, Ky.,  introduced  the  seminal  disclosure program. He offered apologies on behalf of the entire medical center, explained the er-ror sensitively, offered to make restitution involving subsequent corrective medical or surgical treatments, and then handed off the veteran and/or his family to a VA lawyer  (along with the patient’s  lawyer) to  calculate  loss and settlement.   After the program was instituted, there was a swell in the number of settlements, but a steep drop in total payments, according to reports published in the Annals of Internal Medicine and elsewhere.  “When  the  Lexington VA  published their data in the 1990s, it was written off in the health care world because it was a tightly controlled government institution,” says author Michael Woods, MD, of “Heal-ing Words” (Joint Commission Resources, 2004). “People said, ‘You will never repro-duce those results in the for-profit sector,’ Copic  and  the  University  of  Michigan showed you can.”

Copic calls its program the 3R’s:(R)  recognize that an unanticipated 

event occurred,(R)  respond  soon  after  the  event, 

and(R)  resolve with  risk management 

early intervention.  The program began in 2000 for claims valued at less than $30,000. Not a single incident handled with the 3R concept pro-ceeded to full litigation in five years. The company is studying how to implement a program for all cases.  A typical  incident recently  involved a 40-year-old woman who underwent a vagi-nal hysterectomy and suffered a ureter in-jury, requiring a stent. She was reimbursed 

continued, next page

MEA CULPAfrom previous page

10

Register onlineat floridabar.orgJoin us for the

• Multiple CLE Seminars for ONE FEE!

• Meet with our Supreme Court Justices

• Attend the General Assembly

• Visit the Lawyers' Marketplace

June 27-30Orlando World Center Marriott

To lock in low convention rates, visit www.marriott.com

(group code: flofloa)or call 800/228-9290 or

407/239-4200, ext. 85454

8701 World Center Drive • Orlando, FL 32821

2007 Annual Florida Bar Convention

MEA CULPAfrom previous page

$7,000 for unpaid medical expenses and loss of time.  Institutions  that promote  full dis-closure allege  that  they make apolo-gies because  it  is  the ethical and  the humane thing to do. However, hard fi-nancial data demonstrating reductions in defense costs constitute a compelling incentive.  “I have no doubt we are better off financially, but we are driven by doing the right thing  for our patients,” says Bruce Merl, MD, Kaiser’s medical-legal director.

Erisa  Means  Never  Having  to  Say You’re Sorry?  Claims against HMOs are going up or down, depending on the lawyer you speak with. Denver health  insurance defense  lawyer Theodore Laszlo,  JD, says  that  claims have  risen over  the course of his 25 years in practice, indi-cating that apology programs are not working.   Steven Ziegler, JD, another health insurance defense lawyer, says a combination of apology programs, open access, new appeals processes, and fresh approaches  to medical necessity have reduced his litigation load by half. “In the  last five years, health plans have taken a friendlier approach to member 

complaints,” he says.  Jeffrey Liggio, JD, a plaintiffs’  law-yer, says that the conduct of HMOs has worsened over the years, increasing the number of cases.  What warring  lawyers agree on  is that lawsuits by patients against HMOs are not so common as malpractice suits against  doctors  and  hospitals,  since MCOs  derive  substantial  immunity from prosecution  for negligence  from ERISA - the Employee Retirement In-come  Security Act  of  1974,  which  is administered by the U.S. Department of Labor.  Of 162 million employees cov-ered under employer-sponsored health plans, 128 million are in ERISA-covered private health plans.  Employees  covered  under  ERISA may  sue  HMOs  on  the  federal  level but recover only the amount of benefits wrongly denied.  So if a CAT scan is denied, patients can sue only for the amount of the ser-vice, not  for pain and  suffering,  bad faith,  lost  wages,  permanent  injury, or medical complications arising  from the denial  -  items  that  can  increase the amount of a judgment.  “Not many attorneys  take ERISA cases because the process  is  long and you might get attorney’s fees and that’s all,” says Mi-chail Hack, JD, a plaintiffs’ lawyer.  There remains a significant pool of 

litigants not  covered by ERISA who keep HMO lawyers hopping. The pool includes any employee covered under a government plan -federal, state, mu-nicipal,  Medicare  and  Medicaid,  the self-employed and others.  Many attempts have been made  in the last decade to pass legislation that would allow employees covered under ERISA plans  to sue carriers  for mal-practice, forcing them to bear responsi-bility for how decisions affect outcomes and  reversing  ERISA  preemptions.  These effort have not succeeded. 

For further reading:“Wall of Silence, Rosemary Gibson 

and Janardan Prasad Singh (Life-line Press, 2003)

On Apology, Aaron Lazare, MD (Ox-ford University Press, 2004)

Healing Words, Michael Woods, MD (Joint  Commission  Resources, 2004)

Medical Errors and Medical Narcis-sism, John Banja, PhD, (Jones and Bartlett Publishers Inc., 2005)

_________________________________*Maureen Glabman is  the 2000 Columbia Uni-versity Reuters Fellow  in Medical Journalism.  This  edited version of  the article  is  reprinted with permission Managed Care Magazine, Janu-ary 2007.

THE MODERN LAWYER’S TESTBy Jeff Tolman*

  The new millennium is in full swing, and all the legal visionaries say our pro-fession is destined to mutate.  The old days of client relations and traditional forms of billing will soon disappear.  In their place will be MDPs  (Multi-Dis-ciplinary Practice Groups),  officeless, paperless lawyers who meet clients over the Internet; and transitory client who will negotiate the best deal each time they need  legal services.   The days of lawyers like me will go the way of the dinosaur and passenger pigeon.  To see how prepared you are for these changes, the Modern Lawyer’s Test fol-lows.  Will you end up like me, a pau-per  surrounded by  long-term, valued clients?  Or will you be one of the new 

generation of cyberprofessionals, who, according to the prophets, will excel in our new professional world?1.  Why Did You Become a Lawyer?□ I  always  dreamed  of  dividing  my work-day into six-minute increments.□ A longtime goal has been to have a student loan debt bigger than the aver-age annual NBA salary.□ To help people.□ I thought Atticus Finch was cool.□ I thought Atticus Finch was rich.2.  A Tenth of an Hour Is:□ A unit for measuring a lawyer’s bill-ings.□ A unit for measuring a lawyer’s life.□ An outdated unit of measurement.  New  instruments can divide  time ac-

curately into thousandths of an hour.3.  Billable Time Differs from Real Time in the Following Ways:□ None.□ There are  in  excess  of  30 billable hours in a day, only 24 clock hours.□ One  is  precise,  the  other  only  an estimate.□ There  is  no  leap  year  in  billable time.4.   You Know You are Spending Too Much Time at the Office When:□ You  tell  your  child  to  be home at three-tenths of an hour after five.□ You are agitated by the inaccuracy of the stove clock that measures the roast you are cooking only in minutes.

continued, next page

11

Are drugs or alcohol causing a problem in your life?

Are you overcome by depression?Completely confidential

help is available.(Ch. 397.482-486, F.S. 2002)

Call Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc.

1-800-282-8981

□ Your conversation during your family dinner sounds like you are dictating.□ You greet your child with, “Good eve-ning, Scott, it’s always nice to see you.  Please follow me back to the conference room.”5.   The proper balance between  time at your office and time with your fam-ily is:□ 2,000 hours to bill at the office; 1,000 hours to chart as a parent.□ 2,000 hours  to bill at  the office; do what you can at home.□ Bill what you have to so you won’t get fired; coach at last two of your kid’s teams each year.□ If you get a standing ovation when you enter  the house, you aren’t home enough.6.  Lawyers Should Be Leaders in the Community and Active in the Bar As-sociation:□ When?□ How?□ Why?□ Yeah, right!!7.  Why Would a Lawyer Want to be a Judge?□ Judges work 40-hour weeks and get six weeks a year off.□ Judges don’t have billing quotas.□ Judges make $120,000 a year and recognize their kids.□ Judges get the last word in and law-yers say “Thank you, Your Honor” even when they think the jurist is an idiot.□ You’ve always want to send someone to prison.8.  When Multi-Disciplinary Practice is Allowed, You Want to be Partners with the Following People:□ Mortician.  Probates are good work.□ Doctor.   Dad always said, “Only be partners with people who make more money than you.”□ Financial planner.   You’d be rich  if you didn’t have to pay a commission on every stock trade.□ Police  officer.   They  know  all  the people in legal trouble.9.  You Know You Have a Good Client When:□ They are  the  third generation of a family you have represented.□ They don’t bring  in Internet print-outs from the online law sites to their appointment.□ They don’t threaten to go to another law firm unless you  lower your rates from the  last matter you represented them on.

□ They  say  thank you after  the ap-pointment,  and ask where  the book-keeper is so they can pay their bill.10.  The Best Reason to Have Staff is:□ Someone to blame mistakes on.□ Someone to check the voicemail while you are playing golf.□ Someone to visit with between ap-pointments.□ With voicemail and computers, there is none.11.  The Main Advantage of Voicemail is:□ Clients can  leave detailed messag-es.□ You can screen your calls and talk only to the clients you want.□ You can tell people: “I am temporar-ily away from the office or with a client” when you aren’t and no one will know.□ You have more control of your time without client interruptions.12.   The Best Reward a Lawyer Can Get is:□ Having the bill paid.□ Receiving a  thank you  from a  cli-ent.□ Becoming a partner so you will get some of  the money the associates are billing.□ Twenty-two percent a year return on your 401(k).13.  You Have a Webpage Because:□ You can’t snag local clients.□ The old lawyer down the street will never get the third generation of most families.  The kids are too young and too cybersmart.□ You succumbed to the constant sales pitches of invading webmasters.□ Who needs to see clients face-to-face?  You don’t have to feel their pain if you don’t see them.□ You want to appear more computer literate than you are.14.  Clients Who Expect Their Calls to 

be Returned:□ Are behind  the  times.   Don’t  they have e-mail?□ Are unreasonable.  Doctors don’t re-turn their calls; why should lawyers?□ Are usually calling to complain about something.□ Are  obviously  obsessing  too much about their problems.15.  Client Service is:□ Old news.  No one does it except the lawyer  down  the  street  with  all  the clients.□ The major difference between  law-yers who will be successful and not.□ For lawyers who don’t have enough work.□ Overemphasized.  Most clients’ prob-lems  will  work  themselves  out  over time.  If you answered the questions  in a way that emphasized the importance of technology, you are ready for the great evolution of our profession.  If you an-swered the questions emphasizing cli-ent relationships, you have a satisfying practice.  If you answered the questions in a way that emphasized spending time with your family, find a work situation that will allow that.  If you answered the questions emphasizing the negatives of our profession, good luck.  The new millennium is in full swing, and all the legal visionaries say our pro-fession is destined to mutate.  But don’t tell my clients.   They still  think  that having someone they know, who cares about them and returns their calls, and who assists  them through their  legal troubles is the wave of the future.

_________________________________* Jeff Tolman practices law in Poulsbo, Wash-ington.  He has served on the Washington State Bar Association  Board of Governors, and is a frequent speaker and writing on  law-related topics.  This article is reprinted with permis-

12

Starting, growing or closing...LOMAS offers unbiased, knowledgeable assistance.

The Law Office Management Assistance Service of The Florida Bar

Developing Business Management Practices Within the Law Firm Today to Promote Efficiency and Professionalism

for the Law Firm Tomorrow

If you have ever made any of these statements, our service is for you.■ I’mthinkingaboutopeningmyownlawoffice,butIdon’tknowwheretostart.■ Istartedmyownlawoffice,butnowI’mafraidtoopenmyeyesbecauseIdon’twanttosee

whereI’mgoing.■ I’vebeendoingthisfortwentyyears.HowamIdoing?■ I’msobusyrunningtheoffice,Ican’tfindtimetopracticelaw.

Wecanhelpyoureachyourgoalsbyprovidingyouwithskilledassistancewith: • preventive maintenance reviews of your office systems; • consultations on specific office management problems, systems, or procedures; and • providing reference materials for you to use to update or learn new management skills.

Our goals are to enable lawyers to: • Expand professional competence • Implement efficient procedures • Improve client services • avoid or reduce errors • Increase management skills • reduce stress and improve quality of life

What Practice Management Areas Are You Talking About?

The practice areas we will focus on are: • business Planning • Operations Management • financial Management • facilities Management • Technology • Client relations • Personnel Management What If I’m Doing Things Wrong? all lOMaS consultations are confidential so you can feel comfortable discussing management is-

sues without worrying about these discussions going outside of YOUr office.

Can I Afford This? Yes! The lOMaS program is designed to be affordable to florida bar members, especially solo

practitioners and small firms.

Call Us Today! If you have questions or want to know more about the program, call lOMaS today!

LawOfficeManagementAssistanceService – calltoll-freeat866.730.2020

1�

helpless to stop it.  And it’s my fault it’s there.    I  feel worthless and ashamed.  I’ve  failed every one who cares about me.  Oh, how I wish I could go back and start over!”  I don’t care how stoic the client ap-pears.  When he shows up at a lawyer’s office,  something  like  that  is usually going on inside.  It must feel pretty aw-ful.   So what is the client looking for?  What does he need and want from you?  He needs someone capable and strong to  join him in the fight, someone who knows the monster, someone who has fought it before and is not afraid of it, someone who will protect him.  And he needs someone who will resist the temp-tation  to  judge him, who won’t align himself with his  enemies.    In  short, someone he can trust.  That is the foundation of a good at-torney/client relationship.  This kind of trust can only develop when the lawyer pays attention, really hears the client, tries to understand the client’s pain, and does so without even a hint of judgment.  Being on the client’s side doesn’t mean you approve of what he or she did.  It means you’re going to help your client deal with it, to begin the process of putting his life back together, and to help him forgive himself.  It also means resisting the temptation to join the self-righteous legions surrounding him,  whose  disapproval  haunts  him day and night.  The client already has more than enough people judging him – what he needs is an unwavering ally.  It doesn’t mean you tell him what he wants  to hear.    It means  telling him 

PROPER CAREfrom page 1

the truth.  Trust allows him to hear it, because he knows you are on his side.    Many  lawyers don’t understand or are  uncomfortable  with  our  role  as counselor  to our clients, describing  it as  time-wasting “hand-holding.”   But it  is a vital part of what your clients need, and if you’re not wiling to give it to them, who will?  If they can’t count on you being on their side, who else in the system can they count on?  Recognizing the importance of this role is the key to satisfied clients.    I’ve learned a lot about dealing with clients and keeping them happy, starting with my first job with legendary icono-clast Alva Long.  Alva did everything his own way.  Calling Alva a lawyer was like calling Ozzy Osbourne a suburban dad.  He practiced out of a small storefront office  in downtown Auburn.   On  the huge picture window facing the street, he painted “Alva the Lawyer” in letters six feet high.  He was partial to garish suits, wild ties, and fluorescent socks.  His battered briefcase was covered with peace symbols and “Free  the Chicago Seven” and “Legalize Pot” stickers.  He spoke  in disjointed parables, arguing points of law so esoteric no one in the courtroom had any  idea what he was talking about.   During an opponent’s direct examination of a key witness, he’d often take out a deck of X-rated cards and play a noisy game of solitaire.  He drove prosecutors nuts, motivating at least one to actually file a “Motion to Make Mr. Long Leave Me Alone.”  De-spite his flaming eccentricities, every Saturday morning clients  lined up on 

his sidewalk  for  their  turn to  implore him to take their case.  Alva certainly was never a candidate for Super Lawyer status, yet he had more clients than he could hope to handle.  Why?  Well, Alva demonstrated the first lesson in the business of practicing law.  Let’s call it Lesson Number One: to be successful in the practice of law, you may not need a good reputation, but you do need a reputation.  In other words, while you don’t need to be eccentric, you do need to stand out from the pack, to take some risks, to do some extraordi-nary things.  It means working harder than the lawyer down the street, trying cases you don’t think you can win, tak-ing on a case pro bono because it’s the right thing to do, appealing a case for nothing because you know  the  judge was wrong.  Over time, your efforts will impress those around you.  In law, your developing reputation is by far the most effective means of attracting clients.  My second job was with another re-nowned  character  of  the  bar,  Irving Paul.  Irv was a Harvard-educated law-yer from old Boston money who could have  made  millions  working  for  his uncle’s Wall Street firm.    Instead, he packed his bags and headed west.  Irv had a heart as big as an arena and, in t he days preceding public defenders, founded what was essentially a poverty law center in Pioneer Square.  Our firm “specialized” in representing clients no one else wanted, those folks Irv proudly called “The Great Unwashed.”   They 

continued, next page

Visit The Florida Bar website:

www.FloridaBar.org

1�

were the legions of poor and down-and-out, with nowhere else  to  turn.   They called him “Lawyer Paul” and would appear at our doorstep unannounced – summons in hand, wallet empty, eyes filled with hope.  As far as I recall, no one was ever turned away.  Irv asked only one question of pro-spective associates: “Will you work for peanuts and do so until you drop?” Those of us desperate or idealistic enough to say “yes” were rewarded with massive caseloads,  little  support, missed pay-checks, and lost causes. We represented many wonderful, decent folks with ter-rible facts and predictable results. What surprised me was how appreciative my clients were despite losing, simply be-cause I cared enough to try my hardest for them.  My experience working for Irv taught me Lesson Number Two:  When it comes to making clients happy, it isn’t about winning or  losing.  It’s about how you treat the clients in the process. I can’t count the number of  times  folks were effusively grateful after I lost their case. They appreciated  the  fact  that  I was on their side,  that I cared, and that I treated them with dignity and respect when no one else would.  When  I  left  to begin private prac-tice, I shared space with an established lawyer known for his take-no-prisoners attitude. Through the thick brick wall separating our offices,  I winced as he loudly berated clients, demanding they follow his advice and not ask  stupid questions. He ended up fighting a se-ries of bar complaints and eventually gave up on  the practice of  law.  I was not surprised. We lawyers operate in a world that is mysterious and frighten-ing to our clients. We speak to  judges and each other in a language they don’t understand. We assume that if we know something is in the client’s best inter-ests, they will, too.  We would be wrong. Explaining com-plicated  legal principles and  tactical decisions is a pain, requiring patience, empathy, good listening skills, and a lot of time. But it must be done. It presents Lesson Number Three: It doesn’t mat-ter that the lawyer knows what’s best for the client - what matters is that the client knows and agrees. Otherwise, clients can’t move on; they are tortured with uncertainty; wondering whether 

they made the right decision. And they will blame the  lawyer  for  the anxiety they  feel. We owe  it  to our  clients  to remove  the  confusion  as  well  as  we can at every stage of  the proceedings, by making sure  they understand and approve of  the decision before we ask them to make it.  As I learned how to practice law, every once in a while a client would get mad at me. The complaints usually seemed trivial; I didn’t return calls promptly or failed to follow up, or was late to court, or  sent  another  lawyer  in my place, or contradicted myself on some minor point.  I’d  often  respond  defensively, without much genuine  concern. That just made  `em madder.   Eventually  I came to realize what I was doing: creat-ing molehills, then challenging clients to make them into mountains. I learned there is no such thing as a “trivial” client complaint.  This led me to Lesson Number Four: Always return calls promptly, encour-age  questions  from  clients,  respond immediately to complaints with sincere concern, keep them informed, explain your advice, be on  time  to  court, and never promise  something you’re not positive you can deliver. Attention  to these details goes a  long way  toward calming nervous clients.  I occasionally receive calls from other lawyers’ clients who want to fire them and hire me. The complaints are rarely about  the  lawyer’s  competence or  the results attained. It’s almost always over frustration with the  lawyer’s  inability  or unwillingness to explain the lawyer’s actions or advice. I hear them out, then almost always suggest that they go back to their lawyer, discuss the problem, and give her or him a chance to resolve it. I rarely hear from them again.  Which brings me to Lesson Number Five:  If  you have an unhappy  client and are lucky enough to hear from her before  some other  lawyer or  the Bar Association does,  for gosh sakes  take it  seriously. Sit down, shut up,  listen attentively, explain without a bunch of excuses, and apologize when appropri-ate. Figure out what the client needs to feel okay about it and move on. In such cases, the warning “act in haste, repent at leisure” is dead on. The worst thing a lawyer can do in response to a client’s complaint  is to blow it off, even if  the client  is wrong. Yes, client complaints often  seem  frivolous,  unfair,  or  mis-guided. They are sometimes exagger-

ated or distort the facts. In reality, they are often manifestations of the client’s unresolved  fear, guilt,  or  shame. But they are real to the client and must be treated as such by the lawyer. In doing so, you are providing  the  client with what all clients need - the means to let go of all that emotion and move on.  Occasionally, we all run into clients who want their money back. This some-times  seems  patently  unreasonable. You feel you earned it twice over. The client  was  very  demanding,  even  ir-rational. You achieved a terrific result. Maybe you had a bad month and need the money.  It  feels  like a complicated question.  Should you return all of the client’s money? Should you return any of it? Isn’t it unfair to you? Didn’t the client sign the fee agreement freely and voluntarily? However you answer these questions, there is only one appropriate response. Let’s call  it Lesson Number Six: Give it back.   And if necessary to make the client happy, give it all back.  I don’t care why the client wants it back I don’t care how much it is, or how hard you worked on the case, or what a great  job you did. I don’t care if the client is crazy, a complete jerk, or a con artist. I know it hurts, but give it back anyway. Suffice to say; I’ve known a lot of  lawyers who didn’t, and every one eventually really wished they had. It is simply not worth the hassle. By the time the complaint reaches the Bar Associa-tion, the client will likely be complain-ing about everything you did and a lot you didn’t.  It will expand into a general indictment of your competence and eth-ics. It will require massive amounts of time, money, and effort to defend. It will not be worth it. So, just give it back and move on, sadder but wiser.

  Over the many years of your career, you will likely repeat many of the same mistakes I’ve made. None of us is per-fect. All we can ask of ourselves is to do our best and learn from our experiences. I hope you can benefit from mine. Yes, this can be a tough job, but even after 30 years, I still think it’s the best job in the world. Not despite the clients, but because of them._________________________________*    Stephen  Hayne  practices  law  in  Bellevue, Washington. 

  This article is reprinted with permission from Washington State Bar Association newsletter the Washington State Bar News.

PROPER CAREfrom preceding page

1�

Florida BarConsumer Pamphlets

Available The Florida Bar has a series of more than 50 pamphlets available for your law office, with some translated into Spanish and Creole.* Topics range from Divorce in florida to florida Powers of attorney to Do You Have a Will? to Protecting Yourself against The Unlicensed Practice Of law.

Worried about where to put these valuable pamphlets?

Worry no more! The Florida Bar offers professionally styled, clear-styrene, display racks which hold 300+ pamphlets.

By placing these pamphlets in your waiting area, you provide accurate, up-to-date information, presented in easy to understand language, that your clients are certain to appreciate.

*A complete list of titles and charges is available at www.floridabar.org

Callnow:800/342-8060,ext.5834

Buying

a Home

Do You Have a Will?

Legal AidIn Florida

1�

The Florida Bar��1 E. Jefferson StreetTallahassee, FL �2���-2�00

PRESORTEDFIRST CLASS

U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDTALLAHASSEE, FL

Permit No. 43