Never Assume “It’s All Good” When Purchasing a Law Practice

Don't miss our July 8 CLE, Business Relationships Between Lawyers, available on-demand after it airs!

Assumptions make daily life possible. We assume the power will stay on, our tech will behave, and the people we rely on will be available when we need them. Most of the time, these assumptions are harmless, until they’re not. When they fail, the consequences can be significant.

Now, let’s narrow that lens to the purchase of a law practice. Few events create more opportunities for dangerous assumptions than stepping into someone else’s client relationships, work product, and professional obligations. Especially with situations like this, assuming “It’s all good” is never going to be an acceptable due diligence strategy.

The Competency Trap – An Example of the Problem

Attorney Smith was retiring. Attorney Wilson agreed to purchase the practice. Once the deal was consummated, Wilson inherited a significant number of active matters, literally overnight. Pressed for time, she made two critical assumptions:

1.    Smith’s prior work was accurate and complete, and 
2.    She would only be liable for what she did going forward - not for Smith’s past work.

Both assumptions proved to be incorrect, and both contributed to an eventual malpractice claim.

What Wilson Missed

Wilson never asked why Smith was retiring. Was he burned out? Struggling with declining cognitive capacity? Behind on deadlines? Had he stopped documenting his files? She didn’t know because she didn’t ask and she didn’t look.

When she accepted responsibility for Smith’s files, she also accepted accountability for the condition of those files. From a liability perspective, accountability for past work done by Smith may not be immediate, but it will come. Clients expect their new lawyer to identify and disclose problems, even if those problems predate the purchase. That expectation is baked into the successor lawyer relationship.

What Should Have Happened

In an ideal transition:

•    Smith would have provided a list of all active matters,
•    High priority deadlines would have been flagged, and
•    Every active file would have been updated with clear, current status notes.

Since none of this occurred, Wilson should have conducted a thorough review of every incoming file, including recently closed matters. Instead, she assumed everything was fine when, unfortunately, it wasn’t.

Competency Cuts Both Ways

Wilson also failed to assess her own readiness. Before purchasing a practice, every lawyer should ask:

•    Do I have the skill set to competently handle these matters?
•    Do I have the time, staff, and systems to absorb this workload?
•    Do I understand the complexity and risk profile of the incoming files?

If the honest answer is “no” or “I’m not sure,” a plan is required.

What That Plan Might Include

•    Bringing on a mentor or senior consultant
•    Hiring staff or contract lawyers
•    Purchasing only part of the practice (where ethically permissible) 
•    Merging practices for a period of time
•    Having the seller stay on as of counsel
•    Staggering the transition of files

The specifics will vary, but the goal is the same: ensure competent, diligent representation from day one.

Modern Risks: The 2026 Reality Check

Today’s practice transitions also involve risks that didn’t exist a decade or so ago:

•    Digital file chaos (mixed cloud storage, inconsistent naming, missing metadata)
•    Cybersecurity vulnerabilities inherited from the seller
•    Unmigrated practice management systems tied to the seller’s credentials
•    AI generated work product that may not have been reviewed
•    Subscription services (research tools, e-signature platforms, calendaring systems) that may lapse or be non-transferable
•    Remote practice compliance issues across jurisdictions (Buyer needs to be properly licensed in all jurisdictions the seller was practicing in.)

If you don’t evaluate these areas, you’re not doing due diligence, you’re gambling.

The Profitability Assumption

It’s also tempting to assume the purchase will be profitable and that clients will happily stay. But if the financials don’t pan out, know that you cannot “fix” the deal by raising fees on inherited matters. Model Rule 1.17 is clear on this.

•    You cannot finance the sale by increasing fees on purchased matters.
•    You must honor the existing fee agreements and scope.
•    Clients must receive written notice of the sale, including the identity of the purchaser and their right to choose another lawyer.
•    Clients retain the right to discharge the lawyer at any time.

Model Rule 1.17 effectively requires you to perform your due diligence before committing to the purchase.

An Insurance Reality Buyers Sometimes Miss

Finally, never assume the seller has responsibly handled their malpractice insurance obligations. Always confirm that the seller has purchased tail coverage because its absence can affect both your insurability and premiums if you become the target of a malpractice claim because the seller failed to put a tail in place and is thus bare. Overlooking this can be an expensive mistake.

The Bottom Line

Buying a law practice can be a smart, strategic move; but only if you resist the urge to assume everything is fine. Wilson’s mistake wasn’t bad luck. It was a predictable outcome of skipping the hard work of due diligence.

Assumptions feel efficient. They feel optimistic. They feel harmless. But in a law practice purchase setting, assumptions are where trouble can begin to take root.