Panel tables insurance ethics opinions.

After hearing a dozen speakers blast them as everything from catastrophic for Florida's liability insurance system to making in-house insurance counsel second-class citizens, the Professional Ethics Committee has tabled three insurance-related proposed ethics advisory opinions.

Chair Elizabeth Schwabedissen appointed a subcommittee to continue studying the three opinions, all of which deal with duties owed by attorneys, both outside counsel and staff counsel, hired by insurance companies to defend policyholders. The subcommittee will also work with the Bar's Special Committee on Insurance Practices, which is investigating the same issue.

Committee members also said they want to have a special meeting on the three opinions, hopefully before the Midyear Meeting in January.

The three PAOs are:

* 99-2, which says a lawyer hired by an insurance company to represent an insured may not release information about the case to an outside auditor at the request of the insurance company, unless the policyholder is informed and consents. The opinion holds that such consent cannot be implied in the insurance policy.

* 99-3, which finds that an attorney cannot enter into a contract to represent an insured where his or her independence or professional judgment would be compromised.

* 99-4, which holds that in-house insurance counsel have a potential conflict of interest in representing insured. The opinion says they may undertake representation only if they believe they can adequately and independently represent the client, the client is consulted and consents, and the attorney does not assist the company in the unlicensed practice of law.

(Full text of the opinions can be found on the Internet at www.flabar.org.)

The opinions were prepared after inquiries from the Bar Board of Governors over concerns that insurance company auditors were improperly requesting confidential case information and that non-lawyer insurance company managers were controlling litigation by deciding how cases should be handled.

But speaker after speaker at the committee's October 29 public hearing in Tampa said the opinions mischaracterized how insurance representation works and threaten insurance companies' ability to contain costs. They also said the opinions could have the unintended effect of voiding policies in some circumstances and that there are already adequate protections for policy holders.

Former Supreme Court Justice Raymond Ehrlich, representing Liberty Mutual...