3 ms·

Short answer to your question is 'yes', there are cases where an attorney has been held liable. You can search online the "Togstad" case, cited as 291 N.W.2d 6

Short answer to your question is 'yes', there are cases where an attorney has been held liable. You can search online the "Togstad" case, cited as 291 N.W.2d 686 , showing that the lines between a legal consultation, and actual legal services can be a very thin. Basically, the wife of a medical malpractice victim told her husband's story- no fees, letters, evidence, etc. were exchanged- to a lawyer. The lawyer responded that "he did not think we had a case". By the time the wife consulted with another attorney, the statute of limitations had run, and sued the first lawyer. The court found that the wife "relied on legal advice" of the first lawyer, and his firm had to pay for his negligent advice since there was clearly a case. So, when there is some ambiguity between a consultation and 'legal advice' , lawyers will make it clear they have not entered into an attorney-client with you simply based on a discussion of some legal issue.

dennisgorelik 13y ago
What are the odds of being found liable in that case? If the odds are comparable with odds of winning Powerball Jackpot then such disclaimers are simply way to expensive (extra cognitive load in emails, unneeded distraction for prospective clients).
- ScottWhigham 13y ago
  What are the odds of being found liable in that case? Is it really worth the hassle + time of defending yourself though? That's the main issue I suspect most people worry about.
- wutangson1 13y ago
  Well, the case went up to the Minnesota Supreme Court and they affirmed the ruling- so, those lawyers had to pay. A lot of other states follow the MN court's reasoning, and since in the US case precedent heavily influences subsequent rulings, it is much greater than a powerball's chance for other lawyers to face similar consequences. I agree with you that those disclaimers are 'expensive'. It seems the ABA wants to control the market structure of legal advice, so as to control compensation for attorneys. The legal establishment has historically been against technological improvements which can more easily disseminate legal knowledge. Even from the popular nationally syndicated radio call-in shows of the 1930s which were eventually shut down, to 'legal form' websites of today, it seemed to provole some powerful interests.

dennisgorelik 13y ago

What are the odds of being found liable in that case? If the odds are comparable with odds of winning Powerball Jackpot then such disclaimers are simply way to expensive (extra cognitive load in emails, unneeded distraction for prospective clients).

ScottWhigham 13y ago
What are the odds of being found liable in that case? Is it really worth the hassle + time of defending yourself though? That's the main issue I suspect most people worry about.
wutangson1 13y ago
Well, the case went up to the Minnesota Supreme Court and they affirmed the ruling- so, those lawyers had to pay. A lot of other states follow the MN court's reasoning, and since in the US case precedent heavily influences subsequent rulings, it is much greater than a powerball's chance for other lawyers to face similar consequences. I agree with you that those disclaimers are 'expensive'. It seems the ABA wants to control the market structure of legal advice, so as to control compensation for attorneys. The legal establishment has historically been against technological improvements which can more easily disseminate legal knowledge. Even from the popular nationally syndicated radio call-in shows of the 1930s which were eventually shut down, to 'legal form' websites of today, it seemed to provole some powerful interests.