IBC wants regulation for personal injury lawyers

Monday, 23 February 2015 08:00 | Written By Yamri Taddese

The Insurance Bureau of Canada says it would like to see regulatory oversight of how personal injury lawyers structure their contingency fees due to what it calls a major gap in transparency in the auto insurance system.

“We need to at least review this issue. Why aren’t we talking about this?” says Ralph Palumbo, Ontario vice president for the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

All key players in the auto insurance system, including insurance companies and rehabilitation providers, must adhere to regulations around their fee structures, says Palumbo, who notes additional players like tow-truck drivers are now subject to regulation thanks to changes under Bill 15.

“It appears that the only major stakeholders in the system that really [aren’t] regulated are personal injury lawyers,” he says.

Palumbo says trial lawyers should file their fee arrangements with the office of the superintendent of insurance or another body that will review the financial impact these fees may or may not have on insurance costs and premiums.

“There is a sense that often providers, whether they’re lawyers or rehab providers, push claims to a higher level so that the awards are higher. That’s the sort of thing that we need to guard against,” says Palumbo.

“No one is saying the claimant shouldn’t get what is reasonable in the circumstances, but we want to make sure there aren’t outside financial pressures that will drive up those costs.”

Barbara Taylor, director of policy at Insurance Bureau of Canada, says the change will protect consumers while allowing the government to track the impact of lawyers’ fees on the auto insurance system.

“First off, we’re asking for a consumer-friendly fee disclosure statement,” she says.

“So that’s something where we want to make sure the consumer has clear transparency on that arrangement that they have with the lawyer. Then we’re asking that that information also be shared with someone like the [Financial Services Commission of Ontario] superintendent, who can then use that information to assess the impact on auto insurance as well as perhaps issue an annual report.”

Ontario Trial Lawyers Association president Steve Rastin says the Insurance Bureau of Canada is suggesting lawyers work harder in order to maximize the value of the case if they have a stake in it.

“You know what, that’s an insult to lawyers,” says Rastin.

“It implies that I won’t do my utmost for my client unless I have a piece in the action. You know what, I think lawyers everywhere should be insulted by the allegation that we’ll work harder for our clients when we have a stake in it.”

He adds: “I work to the best of my ability for every client whether I’m doing the file on a pro bono basis or an hourly rate or contingency rate. To argue that I work harder for somebody because I have a contingency fee, it would be a fundamental violation of the professional code of conduct, our ethical obligations, and I think there are right-thinking lawyers everywhere who put their best effort in for the client no matter how they’re going to be paid.”

Rastin also says there are already sufficient oversight mechanisms in place to guard against improper conduct by lawyers. He calls the Insurance Bureau of Canada’s call for more regulation “a smokescreen” to mask the hefty profits earned by insurance companies.

“I can tell you that what I bill my clients is absolutely transparent,” says Rastin.

“My client knows in the beginning what I’m going to bill them and at the end. For people that are under disability, minors or people in vulnerable situations, we have to get court approval for our accounts. There is already an oversight body in place.

There are lawyers [who] are disciplined for not billing according to proper practices. I don’t want the insurance industry, which meddles in every private area of our lives already, I don’t want them meddling in my personal relationship with my clients.”

Contingency-fee arrangements between lawyers and their clients aren’t to blame for insurance companies’ costs, he adds, noting there are caps in place for the damages plaintiffs can collect for several types of injuries.

Plaintiffs often opt to settle for fear of cost orders that would mean losing their life savings, Rastin adds.

To Rastin, the noise around the issue is a distraction from what he calls “way more serious” concerns with the auto insurance system. “For instance, why are there government-mandated returns on capital for the insurance industry that are something like 11 per cent?” he asks.

Palumbo, however, says it’s only “natural” that lawyers are resistant to regulatory oversight around their fees.
“It’s pretty natural. They have a vested interest in making sure there is no regulatory oversight on their pricing schemes,” he says.

“We don’t think that’s appropriate,” he adds.

Part of the issue, he says, is transparency. “At the end of the day, if the government decides not to impose a cap [on contingency fees], that’s fair enough. But why is this a problem to talk about transparency? I don’t quite understand that.”

The issue isn’t contingency fees themselves, according to Palumbo, but whether those arrangements are always appropriate. “We’re not suggesting for a moment that any of this shouldn’t happen; we’re not against contingency fees. All we’re saying is that the last piece of the [transparency] puzzle is personal injury lawyers, really. No one is reviewing that aspect of the auto insurance system.”

COMMENTS

Discuss IBC wants regulation for personal injury lawyers:

Moira Gracey says:
2015-02-23 07:15 PM
is the IBC suggesting that injured people who have been thrown out of work and are subsisting on the much-reduced accident benefits available be required to pay lawyers up front by the hour? How can the IBC suggest - or the Law Times uncritically report - that lawyers' contingency fees are not regulated? Does Ontario Regulation 195/04 (appropriately entitled "Contingency Fee Arrangements") not count as regulation? Until the insurance industry agrees to a specific tax to fund enough legal aid clinic with enough salaried lawyers to represent all the customers from whom the insurance companies are inappropriately denying benefits, there isn't much alternative to contingency fee arrangements that won't leave injured people high and dry - and insurers laughing all the way to the bank. Insurers should try spending less money fighting claims than they do paying them - that might be a more effective way to lower premiums!

Devils Trumpet says:
2015-02-23 06:30 PM
Sorry to get you excited,the comments were intended for another post that had nothing to do with regulation of lawyers or insurance.My post here was copy and paste,it included a line from a seperate post entirely. I have no knowledge of any insider information regarding Ontario auto insurance.If I did,I doubt very much that I would announce it in this forum. I apologize for my inadvertent mistake,I will double check before I post in the future.

Peter Cozzi says:
2015-02-23 06:05 PM
I have advocated at FSCO for a Consumer Bureau mirroring the Insurance Bureau of Canada to advance the interests of consumers to Government funded by a levy per insurance policy paid for by the same consumers who pay their insurance premiums to Insurance companies every day which in part are used by those insurance companies to fund the IBC. Such a consumer body, properly funded, like the IBC, will be able to inform Government concerning insurance issues from the consumers perspective and thereby provide Government with a balanced view when considering legislative and regulatory changes such as the IBC proposal concerning contingency fees and more.

Tim Boyle says:
2015-02-23 05:56 PM
That Mr. Francis is a shill for the insurance industry is obvious, the only thing unclear is how much he is being paid for being so.

Stew Daroux says:
2015-02-23 05:36 PM
It just amazes me that someone can hold such a lofty position in the insurance industry and really not have a clue regarding the degree to which lawyers are regulated and fee arrangements are scrutinized. In British Columbia there is legislating specifying the maximum percentage fee a lawyer can charge without prior court approval. In addition, clients are notified as part of any Contingency Fee Agreement that they have the right to have the fee ultimately charged reviewed by the Court. They also have recourse to the Law Society of any Province which overseas the practice of lawyers in that jurisdiction. Where is the lack of "regulation" that Mr. Palumbo refers to?

Curious Cat says:
2015-02-23 04:47 PM
What kinds of documents are you alluding to?

Devils a Trumpet says:
2015-02-23 04:10 PM
Another attempt to control every aspect of a claim,the insurance industry once again portrays everyone but themselves as theives while they defraud rate payers and the public.Of course lawyers rip off clients,just not as bad as the government sanctioned theft by the insurance companies. Not one participant other than the claimant has one scintilla of integrity,their just a bunch of criminals running the system. Wait till insurance insider documents begin to surface soon.

Brian Francis says:
2015-02-23 12:30 PM
RE: "Plaintiff lawyers are the only ones fighting for the clients' rights... Plaintiff lawyers (OTLA) advocate for their own interests - not the interests of injured claimants. They aren't always the same. If that weren't true OTLA would long ago have fought against the proliferation of rogue experts who inhabit the system - rather than happily profit from shoddy assessments and endless assessment battles. The only people buying OTLA's "fearless champions of the injured" rhetoric are the plaintiff lawyers.Maybe if OTLA revoked the membership of lawyers who over-bill so badly they are written up in even the mainstream press - and revoked the membership of lawyers who blame dead students for the firm's failings - these indignant protestations wouldn't ring so hollow.

Darryl Singer says:
2015-02-23 12:11 PM
The entire personal injury system is stacked against plaintiffs. The statutory threshold, $30,000 deductible, powerful insurers who sit on AB money for years before they pay it out for necessary treatment. Plaintiff lawyers are the only ones fighting for the clients' rights and attempting to level the playing field. Certainly the insurers do not care. And the provincial government has continually made changes that benefit only the insurers and make it more difficult for the victims to collect.

Darryl Singer says:
2015-02-23 12:06 PM
Lawyers are already regulated by the Law Society and in many cases the Superior Court. The insurance industry has no place in the lawyer-client relationship. If the insurers actually paid what they were supposed to pay to accident victims, when they were supposed to pay, then there would be no need for personal injury lawyers in the first place. Lawyer's fees have no bearing on insurance rates. And the marketplace dictates. If my fees are patently unfair then I will not have any clients.

Brian Francis says:
2015-02-23 10:10 AM
How ironic. This column (Court rejects attempt to blame articling student for delay) in today's Law Times offers even more reasons why Ontario personal injury plaintiff lawyers need oversight. OTLA talks about oversight as an "insult". It is insulting to consumers (injured auto accident victims) to hear plaintiff lawyers trying to download their failings on to students.

Brian Francis says:
2015-02-23 09:41 AM
Raston characterizes oversight of personal injury plaintiff OTLA lawyers as an "insult". What is an insult is systemic over-billing - staggering unreglated, self-awarded premiums - and unfair CFAs. A glance at the FAIR website offers ample illustration of endless plaintiff lawyer over- billing problems. Added to the over-billing problem is another "insult" to clients in the form of OTLA's stubborn, obstructionist stance toward cleaning up the IME/IE system (proliferated with rogue "experts") which is driving up Ontario's auto insurance litigation costs by causing endless assessment battles. But what,exactly, is wrong with a"a consumer-friend ly fee disclosure statement". How is that an "insult"? And what do accident victims think? Why not ask FAIR? Perhaps on this issue (if no other) the IBC and FAIR can find common ground?



Source: http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201502234500/headline-news/ibc-wants-regulation-for-personal-injury-lawyers