How a Business Hired a Lawyer to Review an Asset Purchase Agreement in Florida (2026)

Reply From Edward B.

Thank you for your review. I believe it is important to provide some context because your review does not accurately reflect the scope of the engagement or the services that were provided. This engagement was for a specifically defined legal project involving the review of a buyer-drafted Asset Purchase Agreement in connection with an SBA-financed Florida business transaction. The engagement was accepted for a modest fixed fee based upon the limited scope requested. The work requested within that scope was completed, and throughout the engagement I provided substantive legal feedback, answered questions, communicated regarding the transaction, and provided the work product requested by the client. Your review characterizes the matter as though the engagement included unlimited rounds of tracked revisions, extended negotiations with another attorney, and continuing attorney-to-attorney representation. Those are materially different services from a defined agreement-review engagement and, when requested, require additional time and an appropriately expanded scope of representation. It would be unfair to suggest that a limited-scope engagement performed for a few hundred dollars was deficient because the client ultimately expected services beyond the scope originally retained. I am also particularly disappointed by the suggestion that I may have accepted the matter while being "too busy" to perform it. I accepted the engagement, performed the agreed work, remained available for communication and consultation, and provided what was requested within the agreed scope. Clients are absolutely entitled to have high expectations of their attorneys; attorneys are likewise entitled to have the agreed scope of an engagement respected. For additional context, prior to this review, my overall client rating was 4.9 out of 5 stars based on the feedback I had received from clients. It is now 4.8 out of 5 as a result of this review. I mention that not to diminish the client's individual experience, but simply to provide prospective clients with the broader context of my history of client satisfaction. I respect that the client may have ultimately wanted a broader level of representation than was contemplated by the original engagement. Had that been communicated as the desired scope from the outset, I would have been happy to discuss additional services, attorney-to-attorney negotiations, further document revisions, deadlines, and the corresponding legal fees. However, it is not accurate to characterize a completed limited-scope engagement as a failure to perform simply because additional services were desired beyond the agreed scope. I appreciate the opportunity to have assisted with the transaction and wish the client success with the purchase and future operation of the business.