The Illinois State Bar Association is advising attorneys to meticulously document the scope of their engagements with clients, following a rise in malpractice concerns related to limited-scope representation. The guidance, formalized in best practices released by the Association, emphasizes the necessity of written agreements outlining the precise boundaries of legal services provided.
The core principle, according to the ISBA, is informed consent. Attorneys must ensure clients fully understand what services are included – and, crucially, what services are explicitly excluded – from the representation. Any subsequent changes to the agreed-upon scope must too be documented in writing to avoid disputes and potential liability.
This emphasis on clarity extends beyond simply defining what an attorney *will* do. The ISBA stresses an affirmative duty for attorneys to advise clients on related matters, even if those matters fall outside the limited scope of the engagement. This means alerting clients to potential legal issues that may arise, even if the attorney is not retained to address them. This is particularly relevant as limitations on scope must be informed and in writing, according to the ISBA.
The need for such detailed documentation is underscored by the potential for misunderstandings in limited-scope arrangements. Attorneys providing discrete task representation cannot offer substandard legal work due to a lack of skill or diligence, and must inform clients of the need for additional counsel regarding issues not covered by the agreement.
The guidance from the Illinois State Bar Association arrives as broader legal discussions continue regarding the limitations of executive orders and the reporting requirements for auditors encountering issues with financial statements. While seemingly disparate, both areas highlight the importance of precise definitions and clear boundaries within complex legal frameworks. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), for example, details specific reporting requirements when an auditor’s opinion is qualified due to limitations in scope or insufficient evidence.
Similarly, considerations surrounding the Digital Markets Act (DMA) demonstrate the challenges of defining legal bases for data combination and processing. Restrictions on data utilize under the DMA necessitate a clear definition of scope, mirroring the concerns raised by the ISBA regarding attorney-client engagements. The DMA’s Article 5(2) raises concerns about limiting legal bases for data combination.
As of February 21, 2026, the PCAOB has not issued further amendments to AS 3105 beyond Release No. 2017-001, and the Illinois State Bar Association continues to promote its best practices for limited scope representation. No public statement has been issued regarding the interplay between these legal considerations.
