Opinion ID: 1272901
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: e.i. 99-01

Text: Nationwide has placed great emphasis upon a formal advisory ethics opinion, L.E.I. 99-01, regarding the practice of captive law firms in West Virginia issued by our Lawyer Disciplinary Board in 1999. At the outset we must note that opinions issued by the Lawyer Disciplinary Board are not binding upon this Court. See R. Lwyr. Disc. Pro. 2.16(d) (1994). [6] That said, we recognize first that the ethics opinion relied upon by Nationwide sets forth many concerns regarding the practice of captive law firms, including serious conflict of interest issues. Secondly, we note that Nationwide's blind reliance upon this opinion to support its argument that the trial court must be prohibited from identifying Nationwide Trial Division during voir dire is misplaced. A complete and fair reading of this ethical advisory opinion reveals its emphasis on the inherent conflict of interest between a captive attorney's loyalty to his or her direct employer, the insurer, and the insured who is being represented. Indeed, the opinion set forth to answer two basic questions: (a) May an insurance company use in-house attorneys to represent its insured under the Rules of Professional Conduct; and (b) is the operation of a captive law firm misleading to the public in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. L.E.I. 99-01, pp. 1-2. The emphasis of the opinion is upon protecting the insured's entitlement to loyalty and confidentiality and the inherent conflict which arises when the attorney's sole employer is the insurer providing the insured's defense. Although Nationwide argues that permitting reference to Nationwide Trial Division during voir dire treats captive firms differently than outside counsel retained to represent insureds, there is a fundamental difference between captive counsel and outside counsel. As stated by the Lawyer Disciplinary Board, [t]his is an area in which outside counsel stand in a different position. They are not subject to review and supervision by a lawyer not from their own firm and not licensed in West Virginia. L.E.I. 99-01, p. 6. Additionally, unlike captive counsel, outside counsel are not solely dependent upon a particular insurer for their income and employment and can perform work for other clients and insurers. Nationwide's reliance upon this ethics opinion is primarily based upon the opinion's advice regarding disclosure actions which minimize the misleading nature of a captive firm's name. The opinion advises that a law firm's affiliation with an insurer should be disclosed on their letterhead, business cards, phone book identification, phone answering method, office entrances and pleadings and to explain this relationship to each client. One exception to this would be a pleading or other communication that might be submitted to a jury, so that jurors will not be made aware that a party had insurance. L.E.I. 99-01, pp. 12-13. It is upon this last sentence that Nationwide hinges its argument that its compliance with the ethics opinion's disclosure guidelines also precludes identification of Nationwide Trial Division during voir dire. A statement that the disclosure need not be made upon a document which might be submitted to the jury does not necessarily preclude such identification for the voir dire purpose of soliciting information to determine juror bias. We have previously held that [t]he official purposes [sic] of voir dire is to elicit information which will establish a basis for challenges for cause and to acquire information that will afford the parties an intelligent exercise of peremptory challenges. Syl. Pt. 2, in part, Michael v. Sabado, 192 W.Va. 585, 453 S.E.2d 419 (1994). A proper subject for voir dire is whether a juror has a relationship with a law firm involved in the litigation or one of its employees such that the juror may be biased for or against the party represented by that firm. It is not lost upon this Court that captive law firms operating in this State often change their names on a regular basis, with the only consistency being the insurer affiliation. Indeed, the Court is aware that Nationwide Trial Division has operated under a minimum of three different law firm names in the last decade alone. Unlike national or regional law firms which operate under a consistent name in all jurisdictions, the name of captive law firms often vary by jurisdiction with the only consistency being the relationship with the insurer. In allowing the voir dire question number 12, the trial court recognized that defense counsel's office is known in the community as Nationwide Trial Division and that prospective jurors would recognize that name. [7] We agree with the trial court that inquiry into whether a prospective juror is associated in some manner with Nationwide Trial Division is a proper subject of voir dire to the extent it is intended and needed to reveal potential juror bias. B.