[ad_1]
Reasonable care, or due diligence, is the expectation that a lawyer fulfills their obligations to a client and follows certain protocols. It is subjective and controversial, but failure to exercise it can result in disbarment. It is not absolute and requires discretion to avoid unethical tactics. It can also apply to government obligations. The burden of proof can rest on either party in a case involving reasonable care.
When an attorney gives an appropriate level of attention and care to a particular case and fulfills all necessary obligations to a client, he or she is described as practicing reasonable care, also known as due diligence. This seemingly subjective term reflects expectations in an attorney-client relationship and binds attorneys to certain protocols. Historically, there has been controversy about what the standards are for assessing reasonable care and where the burden of proof lies when the concept comes up in a courtroom.
A lawyer is expected to fulfill his contractual obligations to his client, irrespective of his personal beliefs about the matter or case and irrespective of any minor personal inconvenience it may cause him. In other words, he cannot abandon or ignore the case or the legal issues involved. If a client accuses an attorney of failing to exercise reasonable care and the court upholds that allegation, the most likely consequence will be disbarment. It is therefore vitally important that you maintain control over your caseload, whether it concerns one client or multiple clients, to prevent such an allegation from occurring.
Reasonable care is not absolute, as the word reasonable suggests. A lawyer is not required to consider every whim of his client, particularly if such a client requests that he resort to unreasonable and unethical methods. He must exercise discretion to avoid offensive, unprofessional, or disreputable tactics inside and outside the courtroom. While the lawyer is expected to serve his client thoroughly and zealously, he is also not always required to reserve his work for just one client, as long as a controlled caseload can be maintained.
The concept of reasonable care is often reserved for attorney-client relationships, but this is not always the case. It can also be applied to matters involving an entire government. In countries whose citizens are guaranteed the right to a speedy trial, such as in the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution, a government is obligated to act quickly and refrain from procrastinating.
Due to the subjective bias of the concept, it is difficult to assess the standards for reasonable care. An attempt to demonstrate that a lawyer, or an entire government for that matter, has not put forth sufficient effort to resolve a particular issue is not a clear-cut task. However, the burden of proof does not always rest on the customer. Sometimes, parties accused of failing to exercise reasonable care must argue their case rather than have the client attempt to prove that the attorney has failed to fulfill his obligations.
[ad_2]