Thanks, John.
-- -- --
Douglas J. Sanderson
McCandlish & Lillard, P.C.
11350 Random Hills Road, Suite 500
Fairfax, Virginia 22030-7429
Telephone: (703) 934-1122
Facsimile: (703) 352-4300
email: dsand@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.mccandlaw.com
[This email is not intended, nor shall it be deemed, unless otherwise
expressly provided in writing, to (1) constitute or provide legal
advice or counsel, unless the recipient already has an attorney-
client relationship with the firm or me; (2) create an attorney-
client relationship; or (3) contain my electronic, or other implied,
signature. TAX ADVICE DISCLAIMER: To the extent that this email or
any attachment contains legal advice, this written advice is not
intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any
taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on
the taxpayer.]
On Oct 8, 2007, at 3:28 PM, John Crouch wrote:
Douglas J. Sanderson wrote:
Well that's a breath of fresh air and common sense reasoning in the
new ABA opinion! Note, too, that the opinion refers repeatedly to a
"four-way agreement" -- presumably, a SINGLE agreement with both
clients and both attorneys signing. So do we go back to that?
-- -- --
Personally, I prefer it to be a two-way contract anyway. I think we
need to emphasize that it's the clients who choose the process and
make the other major settlement decisions, not the lawyers. And I
think the best way to avoid 4-way privity-of-contract (purely as a
matter of clarity and malpractice-liability prevention, completely
aside from notions of conflict of interest arising from it) is to not
sign a 4-way contract, rather than signing one and including a bunch
of disclaimers about how your signing it doesn't really create a
contract with everyone else. That kind of stuff doesn't set a great
example for the clients, and might make them cynical and/or confused.
--
John Crouch
Crouch & Crouch
2101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 950
Arlington, Virginia 22201
703-528-6700
divorce@xxxxxxxxxxx
www.divorceandestateplanning.com
