Quote:
Originally Posted by jjjou812
So you really want to know if an attorney has an ethical obligation to predict future results of what 8-12 laypeople will decide are the facts of a case 12 months after litigation is commenced? Is that before or after learning the "facts" from their impartial client?
In the cases I have been involved in (admittedly few) the lawyers have always tried to peg the odds as they see it with statements like 'this is a very strong case and you are on very solid legal ground' so my question is only if that is written into their code of ethics to do so, which has been answered.
A code of ethics is not an obligation nor does it mean they have to get it right, it is just advising them to the best of their judgment and experience to lay out the facts.
I would ask the same of Doctors and GUESS they have an ethics obligation and maybe even a legal obligation to advise the patient of the risks of inaction (refusing surgery or medication) versus the risk of the surgery or medication itself.
If you ask me as a betting man I suspect the Dr's ethical obligations require him to advise on all that, but I am not so sure I would state that as fact.