In an opinion issued on February 11, 2011, Ohio addressed the issue of requests as a condition of settlement for a plaintiff attorney to indemnify a third party who may have claims against settlement proceeds. This gets at the question of whether it is permissible for plaintiff counsel to indemnify against potential medical lien holders. The request for indemnification by plaintiff counsel is becoming more and more commonplace. Some states have begun to address the issue.
According to the Ohio opinion 2011-1, it is “improper for a plaintiff’s lawyer to personally agree, as a condition of settlement, to indemnify the opposing party from any and all claims by third persons to the settlement funds.” Furthermore, the opinion stated it was “improper for a lawyer to propose or require, as a condition of settlement, that a plaintiff’s lawyer make a personal agreement to indemnify the opposing party from any and all claims by third persons to the settlement funds.”
For more related ethics opinions take a look at the following:
Arizona Opinion 03-05 (2003)
California Eth. Op. 1981-55 (1981)
Florida Eth. Op. 70-8 (1970)
Indiana Opinion No. 1 of 2005
Illinois Adv. Op. 06-01 (2006)
Kansas Op. 01-05 (2001)
Missouri Formal Op.125 (2008)
New York City Bar Formal Opinion 2010-3 (2010)
North Carolina State Bar Ethics Op. RPC 228 (1996)
South Carolina Ethics Adv. Op. 08-07 (2008)
Tennessee Formal Op. 2010-F-154 (2010)
Vermont Ethics Op. 96-05 (1996)
Wisconsin Formal Op. E-87-11 (1987)