Comments on: Lawyers "going bare" in California

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:29:00 +0000

No, it's really not irrelevant, at least if you're seeking political changes based on the amount.

It's irrelevant in terms of setting premiums though. What's relevant there is the cost to the insurer in the event the odds fail and the risk comes due. So you haev to ask what are the damages likely to be if the medical provider is negligent v. what are they likely to be if the lawyer is.

And that depends on what they're actually doing. For a family lawyer, probably not much damage monetarily. For a tax lawyer, maybe quite a bit more.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:52:00 +0000

Its irrelevant! The fact is, whatever the malpractice is, thats the price that is set by the company. And its a quarter of what these lawyers’ “targets” are (i.e. doctors. If they dont like it casue its too big a “gross” percentage of their salary, they can fight the same useless battles that doctors do.

A buck is still a buck. A better question is where do they calculate these rates? Since all these companies seem to stay in business, I’m guessing they’re making a profit.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:59:00 +0000

Mike, what’s your salary? Without knowing what it is as a percentage of your gross doesn’t tell us much.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:32:00 +0000

I love this comment:

"Some would lose business; others would buy coverage to avoid public stigma, adding $4,000 to $7,000 a year to their operating costs, she said."

Are they kidding? Average malpractice in NY for IM is 20K!!! Add THAT to your operating costs you a%&$#%#!!!!!