Coverage counsel.

The recent seminar in the West Palm Beach courthouse focusing on the use of coverage counsel highlights the growing importance of this once cottage industry.

The use of coverage counsel is nothing new, and the concept of splitting legal responsibilities between different attorneys is older than the American judicial system itself.

In Britain and many other common law countries, the legal profession is split between two types of lawyers: barristers and solicitors. The barrister specializes in litigation and in-court representation, whereas a solicitor is the lawyer who interacts with the client, handles transactional work and, if litigation arises, they, not the client, hire a barrister.

Use of coverage counsel can be considered a derivative of the common law use of solicitors and barristers. Those who are offended by the concept of and/or use of coverage counsel focus on the perceived lack of skills, competence, and preparedness of coverage counsel.

In common law countries, the use of barristers acts as a check and balance on the solicitor. If the case has not been handled properly, the barrister has a duty to advise the client of a separate possible claim for legal malpractice against the solicitor.

Can you imagine if coverage counsel had the ability (and duty) to report back to the client about the hiring attorney's work product? It certainly would reframe the issue from an attack on coverage counsel and instead start a conversation on the responsibilities of both the firm hiring and the attorney providing coverage services

The use of coverage counsel should not be problematic in and of itself. Just like...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT