motiontodismiss wrote:birdlaw117 wrote:Kochel wrote:birdlaw117 wrote:I would say that companies weren't LLPs before because LLP wasn't an option. I think that is probably a more reasonable viewpoint, as opposed to the "showing their clients they are personally responsible and increasing their street cred" idea.
For firms with a dozen offices worldwide and a zillion partners, it's crazy risky not to use a liability-limiting structure. But the few firms that remain general partnerships most likely do use the "sink or swim together" rationale. (I was privy to some of the debates at my firm before it became an LLP, years after the structure was created.) Whether that has any resonance with clients is harder to tell. As a client, I think mainly about how good the partner and practice group are, not about what would happen to the firm as a whole if a catastrophic loss occurred.
As someone with an Accounting background, I would say it is crazy to to not use a liability-limiting structure. There is not a single benefit of any significance, while there is a huge amount of benefits that come with it.
Anyone with a modicum of common sense would be crazy not to use a liability-limiting structure.
Prof: Can somebody please explain to me "Natural Law?"
Student: "Common Sense" Law?
Prof: Oh, ho, ho... Let me jump out the window Billy!
