Posted by still looking on 6/14/07

More | Report Post

A non-attorney friend suggested that business and perhaps
individuals should have an attorney conduct a 'Legal
Audit', meaning a comprehensive review of their situation
with recommendations on areas to improve. I said it is
not a bad idea, but I thought that most attorneys would
probably avoid such an engagement because it would open up
too much malpractice exposure. I can just see someone
coming back in two years saying, This happened to me, and
you told me this! or This happened and you missed this!
And I don't see anyway under the ethical canons for a
lawyer to limit their liability with such an engagement.
I told him that lawyers are trained to handle individual
specific cases with existing problems, and really don't
like to get into hypotheticals, which would be the
foundation of this so-called legal audit. Also, I said
there wouldn't be many attorneys with the expertise to
handle such a comprehensive engagement. He said they can
recommend other attorneys for the areas they don't
specialize in. Well if anyone provided this kind of
service it would probably be just a big full service law
firm. Am I overly cautious on my view of malpractice?

Re: Legal Audits, 7/17/07, by Andy.

Solo Practice Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST