As Tom Farmer reported (``Millions returned to bad lawyers' clients,'' Nov. 29) the Massachusetts client security fund, which reimburses victims of lawyer theft, ranks as one of the best in the nation. In 2004, the fund paid out an impressive $2.4 million to cover claims of lawyer theft. And unlike other states, where fund balances dip dangerously low, the Massachusetts system remains solvent. In addition, Massachusetts is one of the only states to fully reimburse clients for their loss. In other jurisdictions, Richard Ratner, the victimized client in the Herald's article, would not have been able to recoup his $30,000, due to restrictive limits on payouts that can be as low as $2,500.

The Massachusetts fund serves as an example for other states, but the Herald's story points out one pressing issue: The fund is little known. By expanding outreach efforts, the Massachusetts fund can go further toward honoring its commitment to assist victims of unethical attorneys.

The Massachusetts client security fund should indeed be commended, but it is just one piece of the puzzle. Legal malpractice claims are an additional avenue through which victimized legal consumers can pursue financial compensation. In Massachusetts, however, lawyers are not required to carry even a minimal amount of liability insurance. Thus, even if a victimized client is able to find a lawyer willing to sue another lawyer and overcome nearly-insurmountable standards for proving legal malpractice, the client's chances of full restitution are still slim. Massachusetts should follow the lead of states like Illinois, South Dakota and Virginia by requiring lawyers to, at the very least, disclose their insurance status to potential clients. Ideally, Massachusetts would mirror Oregon's requirement that all lawyers carry a minimum amount of insurance.