Loading...
Cost-Benefit Analysis and Third-Party Opinion Practice
Lipson, Jonathan C.
Lipson, Jonathan C.
Citations
Altmetric:
Genre
Journal article
Date
2008
Advisor
Committee member
Group
Department
Permanent link to this record
Collections
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.34944/dspace/6647
Abstract
Practitioner literature and bar association reports frequently exhort lawyers and clients to use cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to answer important questions about third-party closing opinion practice, including whether to have an opinion in a given transaction at all. Yet, this literature rarely considers seriously what is meant by cost-benefit analysis, or whether it is in fact an appropriate decision tool in this context. This essay fills that gap, by examining what CBA can - and cannot - do for third-party closing opinion practice. Among its benefits, CBA should help to orient discussions about whether to have a closing opinion around an opinion's economic and informational value, rather than claims that an opinion is (or is not) traditional or market in a particular context. But, CBA is an imperfect tool. Cost-benefit analyses can be manipulated to mask costs or to exaggerate benefits. More fundamentally, CBA may treat ethically questionable practices as cost-justified, and may fail to account for certain important professionalizing benefits of closing opinion practice. The essay suggests ways that CBA can and cannot help to improve closing opinion practice.
Description
Citation
Jonathan C. Lipson, Cost-Benefit Analysis and Closing Opinion Practice, 63 Bus. L. 1187 (2008).
Citation to related work
American Bar Association
Has part
Business Lawyer, Vol. 63, August 2008
ADA compliance
For Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation, including help with reading this content, please contact scholarshare@temple.edu