Which of the following is true regarding limiting liability for clients?

The assertion that California bars entirely limit malpractice liability is incorrect. In California, attorneys are generally prohibited from limiting their malpractice liability to clients through any form of agreement. This rule is in place to ensure that clients have the ability to seek full compensation for any harm caused by their attorney’s negligence or misconduct.

In California, the Rules of Professional Conduct stipulate that lawyers cannot make agreements that would restrict a client's right to report professional misconduct or limit the lawyer's liability for malpractice as a matter of public policy. This is significant because it protects clients' rights and promotes accountability within the legal profession.

Now, focusing on why other options are not valid: Limiting a client's right to report professional misconduct undermines the ethical obligations attorneys owe to their clients and the legal system, which is why such limitations are prohibited. Although you can limit malpractice liability if the client is independently represented, the conditions under which this can be valid are very narrow and do not broadly allow for such limitations as that situation would imply a far more complex and transparent relationship between the parties involved. Finally, limitations through verbal agreements are ineffective because ethical rules and the law generally require any agreement regarding malpractice liability to be put in writing to be enforceable, ensuring clarity and mutual understanding between attorney and client.