After tracking back through several blog entries I came upon an article on Law.com about a New Jersey law firm that has put the brakes on plans for a blog on their website because of their malpractice carrier. According to the article:
James Paone II, of Lomurro Davison Eastman & Munoz, says that when he called Executive Risk Specialty, a unit of Chubb Corp. (CB) he was told "this is not a risk they are interested in undertaking."
Though the reasons were not specified, Paone says he took the no-go message to mean the insurer anticipated that the blog might contain postings that could be construed as legal advice. He says he is still pursuing the idea and awaiting the carrier's fuller explanation. Chubb did not return calls by press time.
Apparently blogging is a very popular activity among law firms and therefore is nothing new. Citing several examples of other blogging lawyers the article explains that as long as the blog has a disclaimer stating that the postings are not meant as legal advice there shouldn’t be a problem with insurers.
You can read more opinions about this issue on Legal Blog Watch, DennisKennedy.com and Kevin O’Keefe’s blog. While I’m not a lawyer it seems putting an obvious disclaimer on a law blog is the simplest way to make it known that your postings should not be construed as legal advice. This is just another reason that I’m glad I’m not a lawyer.
» Blogging Proves Dangerous for Law Firms’ Liability Insurance Coverage from BizzBites.com
Who knew blogging could be an insurance hassle for law firms. One New Jersey law firm put their blogging plans on hold after their malpractice insurer said no go. [Read More]
Tracked on: March 28, 2007 11:05 AM | Permalink to Trackback