82,910
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
''But on your head be it''. | ''But on your head be it''. | ||
Folks, it’s like this: | Folks, it’s like this: if you choose to get [[legal advice]], but it’s wrong, and you rely on it, and you end up [[Breach of contract|breaching your contract]] and in rthe process [[Causation|causing]] your counterparty a [[loss]], the answer is ''not'' to [[Disclaimer|disclaim]] your liability to your counterparty: ''it is to sue your lawyer''. That’s what you pay the blighters for: so they, and that juicy [[professional indemnity insurance]] policy they never seem to claim on, will cover your poor, huddled self if the advice they give you makes a bish of things. By paying your lawyer’s bill you are paying your little portion of her [[Professional indemnity insurance|insurance premium]] for doing you wrong. Why let her off? | ||
In any case, think about it from your | In any case, think about it from your counterparty’s perspective. If you’ve buggered up, she’s lost money, you are refusing to make her good and letting your own ([[Q.E.D.]] [[negligent]]) [[Law firm|lawyer]]s off the hook then: | ||
*'' | *''Whatever the documents say you will still have a pissed-off counterparty''. Make no mistake about that. She will think you are a moron. She may withdraw her business. This undermines the [[commercial imperative]]. The [[commercial imperative]] is the main thing keeping you ''in'' business. | ||
*You really aren’t getting good value out of that [[professional indemnity insurance]] you just bought,<ref>You know, by engaging legal counsel.</ref> are you? | *You really aren’t getting good value out of that [[professional indemnity insurance]] you just bought,<ref>You know, by engaging legal counsel.</ref> are you? | ||
*You are letting the actually delinquent party – your lawyer – off [[scot-free]]: your | *You are letting the actually delinquent party – your lawyer – off [[scot-free]]: your counterparty can’t sue your lawyer for (legally [[privilege|privileged]]) advice it gave ''you'', can it? | ||
*You are therefore leaving your | *You are therefore leaving your counterparty – who is also, let us not forget, the only ''innocent'' party here – high and dry and without any legal recourse against ''anyone'' and letting your lawyer laugh it all the way to the bank. ''A grand an hour charge-out rates, right?'' | ||
Furthermore, this incentivises you to get ([[cheapest to deliver]]) legal advice ''all the time'', since every [[email]], file note or memo, however misconceived or | Furthermore, this incentivises you to get ([[cheapest to deliver]]) legal advice ''all the time'', since every [[email]], file note or memo, however misconceived or dunderheaded, functions like some kind of cloak of [[mithril]], protecting you from all pecuniary harm, at the same time parking all questions as to your culpability in arranging the advice, such as “was the legal ''advice'' [[negligent]], or were ''you'' [[negligent]], in the way you chose to frame it, implement it, or even understand it? | ||
===[[Cui bono]]?=== | ===[[Cui bono]]?=== |