A door to malpractice

A “New way to practice wins support” (October) raises some interesting points, but lawyers will have to think beyond the ‘scope’ before undertaking “limited scope representation.” Using the examples in the article, (1) getting advice about your case “when you need it” is opening the door for legal malpractice because the attorney has no full and reliable information of what has occurred prior to the consultation and what is coming down the tube from the opposite side, (2) filling out forms is a paralegal task. Do attorneys really want to take the financial risk for little income? and, (3) hiring a lawyer to coach you can explode in your face if the client does not perform in such a way to utilize your advice to fullest extent. While I support the judge’s intent, the practical consideration for lawyers has to be from a malpractice and financial point of view.

Dennis Leffert
Naples

Enough already

Douglas Kmiec’s remarks (October) were in my view adventia verba ad argumentum ad crumenam, and pretty darn boring to boot. I cannot concur that the rehiring of Erwin Chemerinsky was in the best interest of the university. I believe many of us feel that this state and this country should have more balance in university faculty. Chemerinsky will not affect such balance. Don’t we have enough of his ilk?

Jules Darras
Temecula