Q: I’ve heard about preventive medicine. Is there such a thing as preventive law?

— R.J., Rancho Palos Verdes

A: Preventive law really is just using your common sense. For example, read the contract. Perform due diligence when called for. Act reasonably. Be prudent. There is indeed a serious place today for this discipline. In some respects, it has been practiced for many years. Take, for example, someone who is shipping product overseas. There are a lot of considerations that have gone into how that is set up, let alone what is paid and what insurance is appropriate. In some instances it is negotiated, but not always (or not very much).

Preventive law also can mean estate planning — when you’re gone, what is it you want to have done with what you leave behind? Clear instructions can stave off challenges and riffs. Granted, nothing seems ever as airtight as we may expect, but prenuptials — and post-nuptials — are not a bad idea either. Something about an ounce of prevention.

Q: If my lawyer commits malpractice, but has no malpractice insurance, am I left just pursuing him for financial damages?

— B.L., Hermosa Beach

A: Yes, but if he is part of a firm, you may have claims against the firm. Note that when you retained the lawyer, he was required to disclose to you in writing if he was without malpractice insurance. This rule in California is to protect clients, many of whom presume lawyers have such insurance. Most do — research suggests by far most do — but not all.

A form of preventive law for yourself is to ask any lawyer you are thinking of retaining: Do you have insurance? Is that a tacky question? Well, when you go out looking for a lawyer, isn’t it a bit like deciding whether or not to buy a car? Don’t you ask a lot of questions at the car dealership, and try to make sure your options are as sensible as possible?

Q: So many contracts today indicate you have to arbitrate a dispute. Is that a way of getting an advantage over the consumer?

— M.P., Gardena

A: When arbitration arose as an “alternative to lawsuits,” it was viewed with great positivity: cheaper, faster and more private. After all, many arbitrations have limited discovery. Also, you take out the cost, stress and risks associated with a jury. Yes, some will argue having no jury is better for companies, and not as advantageous for lay people. In either event, as time has passed, arbitrations have proven to have their own foibles. Some arbitrators are costly. And, the nearly impermeable authority of an arbitrator’s decision or award can be the equivalent of having waived any chance at appeal.

That said, I am still of the view that arbitration is a bit better than litigating, particularly when the courts have budget shortfalls, but it depends (at least to an appreciable degree) on what you are seeking to achieve.

Ron Sokol is a Manhattan Beach attorney with more than 30 years of experience. His column appears on Wednesdays. Email questions and comments to him at RonSesq@aol.com or write to him at Ask The Lawyer, Daily Breeze, 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 170, Torrance, CA 90503. This column is a summary of the law and not a substitute for legal consultation on any particular case.