Hanover Insurance Company has asked a federal judge in Georgia to rule that it does not have to cover a malpractice claim against a law firm and attorney accused of continuing legal work after the attorney’s license was suspended.
Hanover asks the judge to block coverage.
Hanover filed the lawsuit as an insurance coverage dispute, not as the underlying malpractice case. The insurer wants the court to declare that it has no duty to defend or indemnify McKee or the law firm over Dayrit’s malpractice claim. A duty to defend can require an insurer to pay legal defense costs. A duty to indemnify can require an insurer to pay a covered settlement or judgment.
Suspended license allegation drives dispute.
The complaint says McKee’s Georgia law license was suspended in September 2024 after he failed to pay annual bar fees. Hanover alleges he continued representing Dayrit after the suspension took effect.
Georgia fee rules set a deadline.
Georgia attorneys must remain current on annual license fees to stay eligible to practice. Lawyers with unpaid fees after Sept. 1 become ineligible to practice law until the fees are paid. That rule gives the coverage fight its central timing issue. If McKee was ineligible in September 2024, Hanover may argue that later legal work did not qualify as covered professional services.
Client claim followed legal loss.
Dayrit later made a malpractice claim against McKee and the law firm. Hanover’s federal lawsuit asks the court to decide whether that claim triggers coverage under the firm’s professional liability policy. The insurance lawsuit does not decide whether malpractice occurred. It presents Hanover’s position that the policy should not apply because the alleged legal work happened during a suspended-license period.
Professional conduct rules add context.
Georgia’s ethics framework addresses unauthorized practice. Rule 5.5 covers unauthorized practice and multijurisdictional practice under Georgia professional conduct rules. Those rules do not automatically decide Hanover’s lawsuit. They do explain why a suspended-license allegation can become important in a malpractice insurance dispute.
Policy language will control
The federal judge is expected to review the insurance contract, the alleged suspension dates and the conduct tied to Dayrit’s malpractice claim. Coverage disputes often turn on precise wording.
Terms such as “professional services,” “wrongful act,” “insured,” “knowledge,” and “exclusion” can decide whether an insurer must defend a claim. The court may also examine whether any exclusion applies immediately or only after further factual findings.
Prior discipline cases show risk.
Georgia courts have treated unpaid bar dues as serious when they affect client matters. In one attorney discipline case, a lawyer became ineligible after failing to pay dues and failing to withdraw from client representation, as detailed in a court order.
Small firms face compliance pressure.
The lawsuit highlights a basic risk-management issue for law offices. License status is not routine paperwork. It can affect whether a lawyer may appear in court, advise clients, or continue handling active cases. Small firms often rely on individual attorneys to track their own bar status. That can create firm-wide exposure if a lawyer misses a deadline and continues practicing.
The case remains pending in Georgia.
The case remains pending in the Northern District of Georgia. No final ruling has been issued on Hanover’s request. The next major step is expected to be the defendants’ response to the complaint. The judge will then decide whether Hanover has shown that the malpractice claim falls outside the policy.
