Lawyeringforlawyers
This can be deemed an advertisement in some jurisdictions.
  • Home
  • About Steve
  • Law Firm Blog
  • Humor Blog
  • Contact

DID YOU MAKE A RECORD IN YOUR OWN OFFICE?

4/2/2015

0 Comments

 



 

 

                    My handwriting was so bad that my mother always asked me to call from college, not write.  We all had to develop some way of keeping readable to us notes once we got to college, and certainly in Law School.  In the pre-computer days, we even had fancy leather-bound law notebooks with room to annotate the notes and attach the case briefs to match.

                    Reading California lawyer Megan Zavich’s article on taking better notes in our offices made me think of the need to re-assert this as a loss prevention item in all law firms.  Most of us have a strong background in taking some form of notes, but I have observed they are often lacking in the routine claims against lawyers I examine.  Perhaps it is the classic “Cobbler’s Children Have No Shoes” Syndrome.  Many files just lack documentation of the legal mission or advice given.

                    As a trial lawyer, I got to the point where mock jury responses no longer surprised me.  I had the opportunity to view a number of live, and also taped, jury deliberations in legal malpractice cases.  The theme there that surprised the non-litigators was that jurors believed it did not happen unless the lawyer wrote it down.  “They are lawyers, aren’t they?” was a frequent comment by jurors.  The failure of the defendant lawyer to document events or advice to the client often decided the case, and always against him or her. 

                    Trial lawyers learn to make a record, and to vouch the record to avoid the void of what would have been offered if allowed.  Business lawyers document for their clients by due diligence, but many lawyers do not have notes in their files of what they did, decided not to do, or advised a client not to do.  We probably did a little better in the days when we routinely dictated letters on so many issues. 

                    Megan Zavich pointed out there are many ways to do it now.  We just need to get lawyers to re-start the discipline of making notes and in reality, making their own record for their files in their own office. 

                    We all know lawyers tend to be an independent lot and they often resist the idea of anyone telling them what to do (despite the fact we all operate under extreme sets of laws and regulations in our occupation).  After the claim has been filed training is not a great way to learn.

                    In firms, for many reasons, I advocate a peer review of files on a periodic basis.  If you have, or are developing, a culture of preventing claims and losses, this is just good quality control.  If such spot reviews show a lack of documentation of key decisions, actions or inactions, you have a good teaching moment and the opportunity to repair.  The best example is to question the attorney how he/she would defend themselves if the client made a claim that was contrary to the work shown in the file.

                    Unfortunately, defensive law is needed in the modern world.  When you do not take a case, a communication to that effect is the great exhibit.  I have advised you to do X, but have made the decision to do A, B and C instead sure will help when that train goes off the track and they blame you.  Why the inaction?  A note to the file might just convince the Disciplinary Committee there was an external reason at play.  In other words, lawyers do a better job to defend yourselves.  Keep a good file that you could show before a jury.  Remember the lay jurors comment: “If they did not write it down, it did not happen.  They are lawyers.”

0 Comments

Lawyers Get Old Also

9/2/2014

2 Comments

 
     I had a very talented law partner who retired at age 64 to take an appointment by the Governor for a six-year term on the Public Service Commission.  He works just as hard as always, but for less money in government service.  When I discussed it with him, he said he wanted to do something different and to go out on top — and that he did.

     The days of the magic retirement age of “X” and a gold watch are over.  (See August 2013 Post.)  For each it is a personal decision and for the poor planners, a necessary delayed requirement.  As the very large group of post-World War II children age up, it becomes a legal issue worth revisiting.  I officially “retired” at 65, but daily actively practice law and intend to do so.  It is just a bit more fun doing it on your own terms, as opposed to that strong fiduciary duty to your other partners to provide full hours, manage a business, feed work to others, and be part of your professional and local communities.  As I said before, no lawyer ever went to the Pearly Gates and said:  “Damn, I wish I had billed some more hours.” 

     We are talking valuable experienced legal resources here.  Firms should have every interest in using their talents productively as long as their lawyers wish to do so.  However, on the other side, you do not want to be the older person the younger partners always complain being gone or not engaged.  They do not take kindly to the “I earned it” approach.  It is more like “what have you been doing lately” approach.  So, do like my friend did — go out on top is my thought.  Work out your own deal with your firm and be happy.  The Earl of Elkview, a local colorful lawyer, advocates “Festive Living” with livable rather than billable hours.  There are many variables to be considered.  See, Jim Cotterman (Cotterman on Compensation) May 14, 2014.

     There is a legal point where the retirement and aging issue transcends what is right, or what you want to do with your legal career.  Do not get to the point where your train of thought leaves the station without you.

     Having served on a statewide Alzheimer’s Board, I feel somewhat better attuned to the aging process issues which will statistically hit the Boomers in a big way.  Absent a cure, aging issues will most definitely affect boomer lawyers and their law firms.  So as your law partners’ keeper, you must watch for all the many things induced by the stressful life of a lawyer, and now add cognitive degeneration to that watch list.  Before 401K plans, lawyers never retired and others did pay attention to this, but not so much in the last thirty (30) years.  Now I see an early ethics opinion on this very subject.

     Kansas Bar Association Legal Ethics Opinion No. 14-01 “Duty to report attorney memory lapses” tells its lawyers to refer memory lapses, cognitive deteriorations, or other potentially disabling conditions to the Kansas Lawyers Assistance Program, or other suitable service.  If this problem resulted in acts or omissions constituting actual violations, then another lawyer would have the duty to report it.  I see this as an early recognition that this coming impairment is a larger issue to be regarded in the legal community due to its potential volume.  Well, there you have it.  Have we discussed this before?

     As a good friend of mine always closes:  “Remember, life is too short for boring briefs.”


2 Comments

THE V-8 MOMENT WITH REGARD TO INSURANCE

8/5/2014

 



 



 

 

     Wow, I should have had professional liability coverage.  I remain amazed at how many lawyers forego such coverage.  I do not understand that rationale since they would never risk their assets with an uninsured car or house.  Yet, they think this cost of doing business is too high or it somehow is not needed.

     Even a totally bogus claim costs real money to defend.  It takes time and work to get these dismissed, with no return of the costs.  Lawyers always seem surprised at the legal costs for such work when they send out similar bills each day.  Then if there is a meritorious claim or even a colorable claim, coverage is very much needed.

     When I last looked, only one state required legal malpractice coverage as a condition of licensing.  Many states annually require you to disclose whether or not you have such coverage for consumer knowledge.  I wonder how many clients ever really check that, or if they even care.  If you err in their case, they will sue you regardless.  Do not think they will not, just because you have no insurance.  You certainly do not want to explain to family members that they now need to take the bus, since your cars were attached to pay a malpractice judgment.  Just treat this like a business expense and get coverage, and get the right coverage.

     You should shop for coverage with brokers and agents as well as Bar groups.  Be totally forthcoming in any applications so there is no reason for any carrier to later deny coverage.  Price varies with the amount of risk you are willing to take by way of the deductible.  Sometimes that is just cost pricing with lower annual premiums for higher retention levels by you.  Sometimes in order to get big policy limits for some specialty work, you are required to have a big deductible.  Bigger firms are used to that, but smaller firms must always be mindful of the amount of risk they can absorb and how much they can promptly pay for a defense.  Usually the deductibles are for both losses and for the defense of the claim.

     At one time, professional liability policies were like your auto policy — occurrence based.  Were you insured when you had the wreck or act of malpractice, or not?  By the 1970’s, that type of coverage disappeared and all are usually claims-made, eliminating the open-ended coverage concerns.  So, now a lawyer needs to be covered when a claim is made and must therefore avoid any gaps in coverage.

     Since claims can arise well after the act or occurrence, prior acts coverage was needed to cover such matters forward when changing carriers or policies.  A tail (extended reporting endorsement) or an endorsement for prior acts must be considered carefully when charging firms.  Someone either closing a firm or making a lateral move needs to consider this carefully.  See, “A Primer on Prior Acts Coverage”, Mark Bassingthwrighte, ALPS 411, May 27, 2014.

     For example, working in a mid-size regional firm, it made no sense to take in a lateral lawyer and provide them with prior acts coverage under the firm’s policy.  There had been no quality control by the firm and there were totally unknown risks involved with the lateral’s prior work.  With a large deductible, it was just bad business to assume that liability.  Accordingly, all laterals were told to look to their prior carriers or firms for coverage up to the day that they just started at our new firm.  Going forward they were covered, even when they left, as long as our firm was viable and still covered.  A tail may be needed by them from their prior work, but if they were likewise leaving a viable ongoing firm with good coverage, maybe nothing was needed.

     Complicated to some degree, but it is just a part of doing business as a lawyer.  You need certain things to practice and this certainly is one of them.  Just like paying the rent on the office, paying for the coverage in a timely manner, and getting the right coverage is kind of important.  Don’t be the person who thinks they will not be sued by their clients.

     Be advised that most are loss and claim deductibles for any expended fees and costs, as well as claims payouts.  Also, it is customary for you to have to pay your full deductible before any carrier pays anything.  So pick a deductible you can afford and then escrow the funds for it as soon as a claim surfaces.  By the way, give notice of claims promptly, again to avoid coverage issues.  See ALPS 411, Claims-Made Reporting Requirement, February 15, 2012.

 

 

 

 

THE SENSORY PRACTICE OF LAW~

6/10/2014

0 Comments

 


     When you do a whiskey or wine tasting, all your senses are used to evaluate the product.  The sense of smell is one of the biggest factors in whether you will ultimately like the taste of the product.   If you have not learned it yet, some prospective clients smell bad also, in the figurative sense.  Learn to trust all your instincts and do the full evaluation before you jump in and take a new client.  Everyone wants new business, but the pain of a bad choice will change your approach to new client intake.

     In the initial interview with lawyers I am defending, the most repetitive comment is:  “I never should have taken that client.”  So, stop doing that.  Stinky clients, aggressive and unreasonably demanding clients, irrational clients, shady clients, and clients who just don’t pay their bills lead to no good for the lawyers representing them.

     Every firm should develop a rigidly followed and routine conflicts check that is done every time and always documented in the file.  In a very small office, it could be a sign-off by each lawyer; as you get larger, you need computer-assisted checks.  Requiring each lawyer to immediately open a file for conflicts recordation purposes is critical.  Working off the books without opening a file in your conflicts system will certainly cause you problems and will definitely cause you conflicts.  But by this point, you need to be smelling using your instincts.

     The worldwide web can be a good thing and a bad thing.  Use it to search the names of potential clients and companies to help weed out those who have public information that would make you not take them as a client.  When things go sour with either a crooked or just bankrupt client, the solvent lawyer becomes the target and the claim will be that you “aided and abetted” the wrongdoer, who no doubt has fled the scene or has no assets, or both.  A simple internet run by you or a staff person may tip you to a recognized bad actor and prevent you from being their alleged partner in the bad venture.

     Clients that decline to pay you a reasonable retainer might well alert you that they would also decline to pay your reasonable bill at the end.  Overly aggressive and demanding clients, unreasonably so, can be problems.  Lawyers who get in trouble with that type of client typically do not stand up to them or tell them that they are the professional and will abide by the rules regardless of what the client wants.  Instead, they knuckle under for fear of losing the money.  I submit that is shortsighted and dangerous.

     How many times have you heard the saying that your first instinct is often right.  Even if that is not the case, look at the prospective client and evaluate all you have and note the “smell” of something not quite right.  Occasionally you will be wrong, but at many other times you can say:  “We do not deserve to be your lawyers” and be better off for it.

 

0 Comments

Who is your Client?

5/5/2014

0 Comments

 

Pretty basic legal stuff you might say.  If so, why do so many legal malpractice claims involve lawyers who lost sight of their clients.  The wandering off of true client north leads to conflict of interest claims.  Those can cause you some distress since juries just do not see your point when you say there was no conflict.  They think bible verses about having only one master.  You will make it a little rough on your defense counsel if you get mission creep from your initial engagement by the loss of the identity of your real client.

Believe me, this happens to good lawyers.  They have represented Fred and his company for years, but in a business deal or in litigation they forget they represent only the company — and not good old Fred’s interests.  What about a partnership or a 50/50 stock ownership and you focus only upon one of them for guidance?  Take a joint representation and fail to disclose the same information to both and see where you end.

A solid way to deal with the issue is to take the pain at the file opening stage.  Define your client and your terms of engagement without fail.  Do it in writing.  To do that, prevent any files from being opened until that engagement letter is prepared.  Sure the clients can then change and the engagement mission changes.  It is real easy to just send an e-mail to document that you have also asked us to also represent the treasurer of the company and we have explained to you any risk of conflict and both of you consent, etc.  You can do the same simple approach for your new tasks: In addition to our engagement letter of January 1, 2014, you have asked to also do X and represent Y in the same litigation.  Believe me, when a claim is made, you need to be able to hand over a writing that says who you were to represent and what you were to do.  It also forces the lawyer to remember who his client is at all stages.

Of course, when you get one of these course corrections after the engagement letter, you better also think of it like opening a new file and do a conflicts check on any new client or new adverse party.  What was clear of conflicts yesterday may not be so today.

These are simple things.  They should be a matter of routine.  Yet lawyers lose their way on who their real client is at times.  Make it a simple process of a full stop until an engagement letter is done specifically stating (1) who the client is; and (2) what is to be done.  Then require, insist and harass until another writing to the client(s) is done when there are changes.  Exhibits “A” and “B” of these will be your friends later when the client’s memory fades, or it is more convenient to remember it differently.  Some lawyers do not make very good defendants or witnesses because of non-lawyer’s perceptions on conflicts.  Clear writings and identity of client and engagement sure help them look good.

 

0 Comments

SITUATIONAL AWARENESS

4/9/2014

0 Comments

 
                   In a recent car commercial, the driver accelerates some new style engine in the car in order to bring the three passengers’ heads up from their devices to make them discuss where to go to lunch.  Everywhere you go, you see people preoccupied with something and not paying attention.  We all go about our pattern behavior without really looking around and seeing our situation.  Lots of trips and slips of all types can be avoided by effectively looking, a concept long recognized in negligence case law.

                    For fun, I took a handgun safety class once.  During all nine hours of the class, the former Marine captain made us do every maneuver only after first looking around us to develop “situational awareness”.  I had never made myself regularly do that as a habit.  I now look around parking areas and walkways, as a habit, because his comments made real sense.  Be aware of where you are and what is around you.  You will see things quite literally and avoid many issues by having your head up and looking around.

                    This same concept really applies in law offices where you want to avoid personnel or client problems.  When there is a big issue of these types, you usually find after the fact that someone had knowledge, or was generally aware that something was not right.  They just did nothing about it.  They did not pay enough attention.  So, I am now preaching situational awareness to you in the loss prevention business for lawyers.  (See November 2013 Post for examples to look for and consider.)

                    A lawyer from Ames & Gough, an insurance broker specializing in law firm coverage, recently shared with me their article on Enterprise Risk Management (ERM), a recognized method of evaluating and eliminating risk in an organization.  They argue that its use in the law firm setting starts with the education of senior leadership and management acceptance and then moves out in the firm.  A group within the firm organizes the effort to list their known risks and keeps track of them and how they deal with them.  They suggest a formal approach to accomplish this and to evaluate the risks, manage, and measure them. 

                    In many modern larger law firms this is done through the General Counsel function.  If you are not to that point in your firm, you may want to consider forming a small group to do this on a formal basis.  I submit it is worth your time and will then allow you to use basic situational awareness to avoid problems.  Paying attention to developing problems will save you later grief, as well as money.

 

See Ames & Gough Winter 2014 Information Alert,

citing Fraser and Simpkins Enterprise Risk Management: Today’s Leading Research and Best Practices for Tomorrow’s Executives

Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2010

 

 

 

0 Comments

Check

2/4/2014

0 Comments

 

     You take comfort when you walk on to a plane that the flight crew always runs a printed checklist on every aspect of the flight and that most systems on the aircraft are duplicated.  If you were awake, you might have heard the scrub or circulating nurse doing a sponge and instrument count before and after your surgery. These are routine and fundamental procedures in these professions. 



      With the number of claims and their severity on the rise against legal professionals, you might just wonder why we do so little check-listing.  I often remind younger lawyers that spell-checking is not proofreading. Double-checking legal documents by proofreading seems to be a dying art.


      A successful major insurer of law firms (Attorneys Liability Assurance Society, or ALAS) recently put on a training program featuring an engineer who was a pilot, and later became a medical doctor who then became an astronaut.  Having retired from NASA, he does quality control for a large metropolitan hospital.  His point was that we lawyers can control mistakes to a greater degree than other professional errors, and should utilize basic safety type checklists
with the fundamental communication read back. Every new pilot learns quickly to read back the controller’s direction to take heading 240° at 10,000 feet to avoid that simple little avoidable mistake of running into another aircraft at the wrong altitude and heading.  The same basics apply to an itemized list of procedures, which as the surgeon Atul Gawande wrote, can “hold the odds of doing harm low enough for the odds of doing good to prevail.”


      In a recent WSJ column, Jason Zweig argued that intelligent investors should consider doing the same standardization for basic investment decisions, and thereby reduce the risk of costly errors you have learned by past mistakes.  He argues the biggest investment flaw comes from inconsistency which can be smoothed out to avoid making the same mistake again.


      So, think with me here as to our profession.  Would not real estate title research and opinions, business closings, legal research and litigation filings, estate planning and many other aspects of the practice make logical checklist items?  My argument is that we can take control of the mill run mistake and narrow its occurrence by a simple read back of all essential and required steps on a checklist to get repeat legal tasks done. 
Roger that.



See, Joseph T. Halliman, Why We Make Mistakes; and The Checklist Manifesto by Atul Gawande.



 

 
 
 


.

0 Comments

MOMMA SAID THERE WOULD BE DAYS LIKE THIS

12/5/2013

0 Comments

 


     You know the legal rules and you follow them.  You use common sense and have good social skills with clients.  You still get named in a legal malpractice action.  It can and does happen to good lawyers.  The ABA recently put the average number of claims at three per career and at a risk of 4% to 17% of a claim in any year.  ABA Profile of Legal Malpractice Claims: 2008-2011.

     Like other professions, you cannot guarantee a result (and remember that half of each case loses as a rule) and sometimes an adverse result ends up as a claim despite no errors or issues – just a loss.  I again encourage you to use all the methods available to you to control and reduce those possibilities.  Bring your own stats down by all means available.

     Various groups look at trailing years and report the highest risk area of practice.  It just makes you want to stay in bed some mornings.  The latest areas to stub toes are real estate (20%); personal injury (15%); family law (12%); estate, trust and probate (10%); and collection and bankruptcy (9%).  Oddly, solos have the highest percent of the claims and the percents drop sharply as the firm size goes up.  The level of experience fools you also because the new and the old are not the leaders of the pack in claims.  Instead the biggest tranche of claims (35%) falls with those having 11 to 20 years of experience.

     The number of claims and the severity (read cost) are on the rise.  While loss prevention is not a positive cash flow in a firm, it certainly prevents already made and taxed income from going out the door.  It is truly worth the time of a firm to devote resources to a solid loss prevention program.

     Ames & Gough, a risk and insurance advisor to the law firms, does its own analysis and studies trends.  They polled seven of the leading professional liability insurers (80% of the market for Am Law 250 firms).  They confirm that the number of claims is increasing along with their frequency.  The bad news is that their study confirms the big claims and costs are growing, no doubt due to added complexity and the cost of defense of these claims.  Out of the seven carriers, six reported payouts on claims of more than $50 million.  That makes a law firm stop to look at their purchased limits, compared with the type of work they do.

     The Butcher’s Bill lists new risks that never even existed in the past (attorney/client relationships from e-mails; inadvertent disclosures via e-mail; cyber risks and confidential information breaches).  Lateral hires are driving up the claims, but the old standby of conflict of interest still ranks as the first or second on all lists of the most frequent cause of malpractice claims – by a large margin.

     I would like to offer end-of-the-year cheerful thoughts.  But the old Dragnet TV show detectives said:  “Just the facts, ma’am.”  It is what it is, so you better do all you can to keep down the claims against you.

0 Comments

THINGS THAT BITE LAWYERS IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE

9/1/2013

0 Comments

 
     The lawyers that don’t get honesty and professional responsibility usually have issues early and often and many times find themselves selling fudge at the beach instead of practicing law.  However, it is not uncommon for honest and reputable attorneys to go years without issues, and then to suddenly find themselves with complaints or claims.  There is simply no way to predict when such situations might arise and, accordingly, you have to always practice like you just finished your ethics exam from law school.

     I wrote here in March of 2013 about “The Appearance of a Secondary Interest”.  I emphasized that conflicts remain a constant problem for lawyers.  As time goes on, lawyers will tend to say, “Well, that’s not a conflict.”  However, in the eyes of clients or laymen and jurors, there is no higher duty that a lawyer owes than the duty of loyalty and trust.  Juries go “biblical” (i.e., as you cannot serve two masters) when a lawyer is perceived to have a conflict which affected his or her duty to the client that is now making the claim.  A totally defensible case can be significantly compromised by the mere appearance of a conflict.  It just colors everything.  I suggest the use of a third party, whether counsel in your firm, or someone else to consult on conflicts.  If there is enough of an issue to merit discussion, it probably merits study and consents from all involved.  Plowing ahead with the idea of a “that’s not a conflict” is just asking for trouble.

    Another area that causes a lack of client loyalty, if not complaints and actions, relates to the lack of diligence.  Any lawyer worth their salt has more to do than she can get done.  You must force yourself, and I mean really force yourself, to stay up with your matters and if nothing else, to communicate with the clients to tell them that you have been delayed, etc.   When you look at a survey of state disciplinary claims, the lack of diligence complaints jump off the page.  Many of those who get deeply behind in client matters then start concocting stories, or slipping out the back door.  That makes everything worse.  The legal items on your desk do not age gracefully like good wine and good cheese.  You must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client or you’re in big trouble.  It simply leads to a blown deadline and your professional liability deductible going out the door.  I suggest you use your staff, your office calendaring systems, and all technology available to help you address the items on your “To Do” list.  You all know that courts and administrative bodies solve that problem for you when you miss deadlines, but the same effect ought to be applied with every client matter.  If you cannot do the basics, hire an assistant to remedy the issue.  Otherwise, you might need to go sell fudge at the beach. 

     Finally, you ought to know what you’re doing.  I routinely look at more than 30 new file openings every business day.  I particularly make sure that the work to be done is in the right practice area, and more importantly, by a lawyer who has expertise in that area.  As a brand new lawyer, I was interviewed by the firm’s most senior named partner my first week and he asked me what I wanted to do.  I naively told him I would like to be a generalist and learn about the law.  He was well up into his 80’s then, with only one sheet of paper on his desk in front of him, and looked at me and said, “Son, those days are gone.”  The law had changed so much since he started in 1921 that he was encouraging each new lawyer at that time to develop a specialty.  Honestly, that was well before the time that the rest of the Bar recognized that, but he was certainly right.  A litigator can mess up a deed for Aunt Bertha quicker than Sherman went down Peachtree Creek.  Lawyers cannot be all things to all areas of the law and simply must have the right expertise.  A little lack of knowledge is truly dangerous in the law.  A simple will done by the business lawyer may miss a critical simple thing.

     There used to be a TV show in which the police sergeant as he dispatched the patrol officers out of the squad room would say
to them every day:  “Be careful out there.”  In today’s modern environment for a lawyer, we need to heed that. 

0 Comments

    Author

    Steve Crislip was the General Counsel and Loss Prevention Member to a 11 office and 7 jurisdiction law firm for 10 years and has been defending lawyers and firms for more than 25 years and litigating for 40 years.
    These articles reflect lessons learned for Law Firms.

    Archives

    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    April 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012

    Categories

    All
    Ames & Gough
    Checklists
    Computers And Lawyers
    Confidentialty And Lawyers
    Guidelines
    Law Firms
    Law Office Practice
    Law Office Practice
    Lawyers On Boards
    Legal Claims
    Legal Claims
    Legal Malpractice
    Legal Malpractice
    Loss Prevention
    Loss Prevention
    Loss Prevention In Law Firms
    Professional Liability
    Professional Liabilty

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.