LexisNexis®
University

Clarifying the Attorney-Client Relationship

Run Time
61 Minutes
Presenter(s)
Alyssa A. Johnson
Class Type
On-Demand Training
Content Provider
Hinshaw

Price $79.00

Add To CartCheckout

Description

Lawyers have a responsibility to ensure that clients understand the scope of, and any limitations on, their representation. Courts have recently clarified the responsibilities of lawyers in drafting engagement letters and in limiting the scope of their representation. This 60 minute CLE presentation focuses on the importance of clearly limiting the scope of a lawyer’s representation at the outset of representation. Additionally, this presentation outlines strategies for drafting engagement letters that accurately describe the scope of the attorney-client relationship. After completing this course, you will: • Understand the lawyer’s responsibility to ensure client understanding of representation • Identify common oversights in drafting engagement letters • Demonstrate how to effectively convey limitations on representation scope in engagement agreements • Understand how to effectively draft client engagement letters to best serve the client and protect your practice from potential claims • Demonstrate how to effectively balance responsibilities to clients with time limitations on representation
See CLE State Accreditation for credit details.
If you are licensed in New York, this content is appropriate for both newly admitted and experienced New York attorneys. Although, this content is appropriate for all New York attorneys, newly admitted attorneys cannot earn CLE credit for the completion of the course when presented via on-demand.
State Status Total Credits Type Of Credit Approved Thru
AlabamaApproved1.00Ethics12/31/2019
AlaskaApproved1.00Ethics11/02/2023
ArizonaApproved1.00EthicsOn-going
CaliforniaApproved1.00Ethics11/02/2023
ColoradoApproved1.00Ethics01/01/2021
ConnecticutApproved1.00Ethics11/02/2023
DelawareApproved1.00Ethics12/31/2019
FloridaApproved1.00Ethics10/31/2020
GeorgiaApproved1.00EthicsOn-going
HawaiiApproved1.00Ethics11/02/2020
IdahoApproved1.00Ethics11/01/2023
IllinoisApproved1.00Professionalism11/25/2020
IndianaApproved1.00Ethics02/29/2020
IowaApproved1.00Ethics11/02/2019
KansasApproved1.00Ethics01/31/2020
KentuckyApproved1.00Ethics06/30/2020
LouisianaApproved1.00Ethics12/31/2019
MaineApproved1.00General05/09/2021
MinnesotaApproved1.00Ethics02/14/2021
MissouriApproved1.00GeneralOn-going
MontanaApproved1.00Ethics12/31/2019
NebraskaApproved1.02Ethics11/02/2020
NevadaApproved1.00Ethics11/01/2021
New HampshireApproved1.00Ethics11/02/2021
New JerseyApproved1.00EthicsOn-going
New MexicoApproved1.00Ethics11/02/2023
New YorkApproved1.00EthicsOn-going
North DakotaApproved1.00Ethics12/31/2021
OhioApproved1.00Ethics12/31/2019
OklahomaApproved1.00Ethics12/31/2019
OregonApproved1.00Ethics12/31/2021
PennsylvaniaApproved1.00Ethics12/31/2021
Rhode IslandApproved1.00Ethics06/30/2020
South CarolinaApproved1.01Ethics12/31/2019
TennesseeApproved1.02Ethics12/31/2019
TexasApproved1.00Ethics12/31/2019
UtahApproved1.00Ethics12/31/2019
VermontApproved1.02EthicsOn-going
VirginiaApproved1.00Ethics10/31/2019
WashingtonApproved1.00Ethics02/10/2024
West VirginiaApproved1.22EthicsOn-going
WyomingApproved1.00Ethics01/22/2020