Insurers Counsel Win In Fla.

By E.E. Mazier

NU Online News Service, April 25, 249 p.m.EST?A Florida judge who unilaterally decided to prohibitinsurance company staff attorneys from using law firm-type nameswas out of line, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled.

In a series of orders in July, Miami Circuit Judge Paul Siegelprohibited the filing of correspondence or pleadings bearing thename of law offices composed entirely of insurance company lawyers.The order applied only to the judge's courtroom.

In its ruling, the Florida high court said that Judge Siegelencroached on the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to adopt rules forthe state courts. Therefore, the court said, the judge must vacatethe orders he issued regarding insurance company attorneys.

The petition to the Supreme Court for a writ overturning theorders was filed on behalf of 11 lawyers on the payroll of StateFarm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. by Arthur England, a formerFlorida Supreme Court chief justice who is currently a partner inthe Miami law firm Greenberg Traurig.

At the time of filing the appeal, Mr. England said that JudgeSiegel's order was indirectly related to an ongoing battle inFlorida over how much control insurance companies should exert overthe defense of lawsuits against their policyholders.

Mr. England explained that in Florida most liability insurersuse their own salaried employee-attorneys to representpolicyholders.

The attorneys are located in offices that bear the name of themanaging attorney plus the words "and Associates" and "employees of___ Insurance Company."

When these attorneys appear in court on behalf of policyholders,they identify themselves as members of their offices, Mr. Englandsaid.

He stated that Judge Siegel had found it unethical andmisleading to use such law office names in court. In fact, aconcurring opinion by a member of the Supreme Court noted that thejudge's orders had referred to concerns about fraud andmisrepresentation.

The American Insurance Association, of Washington, D.C., withthe National Association of Independent Insurers, of Des Plaines,Ill., and the Alliance of American Insurers, of Downers Grove,Ill., had filed an amicus brief last fall urging the high court tovacate the orders.

Speaking of the Supreme Court's ruling, Katherine E. Giddings,AIA national coordinating counsel on litigation management, said itwas "a victory for policyholders."

She pointed out that insurance staff attorneys are fullyaccredited members of the bar who provide "efficient andcost-effective legal services that help keep insurance premiums atreasonable rates."

Ms. Giddings also noted that staff attorneys organized as a lawoffice "that is physically and functionally separate from theinsurance company have every right to use law firm names."

She added that as early as 1969, the Supreme Court had concludedthat representation by staff attorneys was acceptable in theabsence of any actual conflict of interest.

Ms. Giddings also noted that in those earlier rulings, theSupreme Court had stressed that the rules governing the conduct ofattorneys cannot be used to discriminate against staff attorneyssimply because they receive all of their income for providing legalservices from one source.

The Supreme Court's order also referred to the fact that theFlorida Bar's Special Commission on Insurance Practices II hasconducted a study of issues similar to those identified by JudgeSiegel and that the commission would be submitting itsrecommendations from the study to the court.