How can a lawyer limit their malpractice liability with a client?

Hypo 1: Bob realizes he missed a critical filing deadline in Amy's case, potentially costing her thousands of dollars. He drafts a settlement agreement limiting his liability and presents it to Amy, explaining that she should probably talk to another lawyer about it. He gives her three days to decide whether to sign. Result: Bob has violated the rule. While he suggested Amy seek independent counsel, he didn't put this advice in writing, didn't provide a reasonable opportunity for her to do so, and failed to fully disclose the terms and effects of the agreement in writing.

Hypo 2: Bob makes a mistake in drafting Amy's will that could lead to future litigation. He proposes an agreement limiting his liability for any future claims related to the will. Bob requires Amy to meet with another lawyer to review the agreement before signing. Result: This approach complies with Rule 1.8(h)(2) for limiting future malpractice liability. By ensuring Amy has independent representation to review the agreement, Bob is following the proper procedure.

Hypo 3: After a significant error in Amy's contract negotiation, Bob withdraws from representing her and suggests in writing that she consult another lawyer about a potential malpractice claim. Bob waits two weeks, then sends Amy a detailed written settlement offer explaining how it would limit his liability. In the letter, Bob clearly states he is not advising Amy on whether to accept the offer. Result: Bob has complied with the rule for settling past malpractice claims. He withdrew, advised Amy in writing to seek independent counsel, gave her time to do so, clarified he wasn't advising on the settlement, and provided a written explanation of the agreement's terms and effects.

Hypo 4: Bob includes a clause in his standard retainer agreement stating that Amy agrees to limit any future malpractice claims to the amount of fees she has paid. Amy signs the agreement without consulting another lawyer. Result: This violates Rule 1.8(h)(2). An agreement limiting future malpractice liability requires that the client be independently represented. A clause in a standard retainer agreement, without separate counsel for the client, is not sufficient.

Hypo 5: After making a minor error in Amy's case, Bob verbally offers to reduce his fee by 20% if Amy agrees not to sue him for malpractice. Amy agrees on the spot. Result: This violates the rule for settling past malpractice claims. Bob failed to advise Amy in writing to seek independent counsel, didn't provide an opportunity for her to do so, didn't clarify that he wasn't advising her on the settlement, and didn't provide a written disclosure of the terms and effects of the agreement.