Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
When a trained attorney says something could cause a lawsuit, generally they are right, and generally the best course of action is to kill the something in question before someone dashes to their friendly neighborhood U.S. Courthouse.
I find that attitude absolutely frightening. Considerably more frightening than the remote prospect of a lawsuit on which it is based. An attorney has an obligation to his client to advise him that certain activities could lead to a lawsuit. Nevertheless, statute law is not the beginning and end of the law; it is not a cathedral where all must bow down in prayer. Thorough advice would include not only a recitation of the statute, but possible defences to a prima facie breach of that statute. It would include advice on the likelihood of prosecution, and ways to mitigate that likelihood. There could be any number of other factors that could be raised, based on the specific situation. He needs to bring the client to the point where he can make an informed decision.
In the end though, it's the client's decision, and that decision depends as much on the client's risk tolerance. Accepting the consequences of one's own action does not mean hanging on a lawyer's every word whenever a decision needs to be made just to have the convenient excuse, "My lawyer said ..." whenever things go wrong. Such irresponsible people might just as well be getting their legal advice from a tarot card reader.
Ec