2 ms·
The article was insightful, and describes some of the problems, but is short on solutions. A seemingly good solution would be to allow limited-scope representa
by nroach 16y ago
The article was insightful, and describes some of the problems, but is short on solutions. A seemingly good solution would be to allow limited-scope representations with more frequency that is common at present. In Texas, this is permitted by Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 1.02(b) states, "A lawyer may limit the scope, objectives and general methods of the representation if the client consents after consultation."
However, many lawyers are still hesitant to "help out" citizens who want to handle a case themselves but just need pointers. This is in part because many state bars historically don't condone reduced-fee or "partial" representation.
It's assumed by many that if a lawyer helps someone with a case, no matter how slightly, they have created an "attorney client relationship" and are then obligated to provide full representation for that case.
Obviously, a lawyer isn't going to be comfortable doing an hour or two of work if it means he or she will be committed to being "on the hook" for the entire rest of that matter.
My 2c is that we need clear-cut rules for the legal profession that allow limited scope representations without implied obligations of full representation. You can sort of get there now in some states by being very clear in your representation agreement, but the fear of the state bar or an upset client bringing a grievance is a significant concern.
But, with a limited-scope representation you have to think about how that sort of thing gets explained to a client.
For example, assume
a) the client is defending him/herself against a lawsuit
b) a lawyer agrees to "give" the client four hours of consultation on the case at half their normal rate
c) the client goes into court and loses
Does the client now have the right to come back and sue the lawyer because they didn't learn everything in the 4 hour consult that they would have if the lawyer had been on their side full time? Is it malpractice for the lawyer to cut off the representation when the second hand ticks past 4 hours? What if the lawyer knew that there were other issues that would take eight hours to explain? Are they now obligated to provide another four for free?
It's those kind of questions that have led many bar associations to draw relatively bright lines in the sand, even if they seem to be inefficient and draconian.
In the end, I think limited scope representation should be allowed, as long as the expectations are clearly communicated up front. But, that's easier said than done.
- noonespecial 16y agoIf you think about it, medical doctors face almost exactly the same problem. I think medicine has handled things a little better by creating a system of referrals and domain experts and by training specialized workers (nurses and paramedics) with clearly defined roles that do a large part of the work under supervision at lesser cost. Legal 'nurses' (paralegals with specialized training in certain areas of law) might help things immensely. Doctors have a PR advantage though. Most people think of doctors as highly scrupulous individuals and give them the benefit of the doubt. The way some lawyers (and whole branches of legal practice) have conducted themselves have lead to a bit of a PR problem. A law practice has the (often unjustified) whiff of dishonesty and underhanded dealing to it, not unlike used car salesman. People just expect to be overcharged and undeserved and are more than eager to cry foul whenever they don't get the outcome they desire. This makes lawyers extra (perhaps over-) careful. This will probably need to be fixed as part of the solution. Medicine has set up an exceptional system to distribute expertise efficiently and to diffuse and insure against its outsized liability that the law profession might do well to investigate.