The Other Adviser in the Room: A Firm's Guide to Client Second Opinions

The request usually arrives without warning. A client emails to say that another lawyer, accountant or consultant has been asked to look over the advice they have already paid for. Sometimes the timing is dreadful: a transaction is about to exchange, a tax filing is due, or a board meeting is hours away. The instinct may be to read the request as a verdict on the firm. That instinct is rarely helpful.

A second opinion is an ordinary feature of a mature advisory market. Clients seek reassurance, boards impose checks, lenders ask for independent confirmation, and families disagree about risk. The firm's task is not to win an argument about who is right. It is to respond in a way that is clear, proportionate and properly recorded.

Start with the question, not the verdict

Before responding to the substance, establish what the client actually wants. A request to review advice is different from a request to replace the firm, to provide a joint opinion, or to confirm that a lender can rely on the original work. Ask the client to put the request in writing, identify the other adviser, and explain what question they want answered. A short email in reply is usually enough: we understand that you would like a second view on X; please confirm the scope and the identity of the adviser so that we can respond properly.

This is not obstruction. It is the difference between a focused response and an open-ended invitation to renegotiate the whole matter.

Confidentiality, consent and the limits of the file

A client is entitled to seek advice elsewhere, but the firm's file is not automatically transferable. It will often contain information about third parties, personal data, and material that is subject to legal or professional confidentiality. Before sending anything to another adviser, obtain written authority from the client. Check the identity and regulated status of the other adviser. Run a conflict check if the other adviser is known to the firm or acts for an opposing party in another matter.

Send only what is needed to answer the question. That may be the advice itself, the key instructions and the relevant documents, not the entire file. Redact third-party information where appropriate. Record what was sent, what was withheld, and why. Under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, the client's authority is important, but it does not remove the firm's own obligations to protect personal data and third-party confidentiality.

Put the second opinion inside an engagement, not outside one

A request to respond to another adviser's review is work. It takes time to collate papers, revisit the advice, attend a call and write a considered response. Unless the existing engagement letter clearly covers it, the firm should issue a short scope note or fee estimate before doing that work. Explain what is included, what is not, and the likely timetable. If the client is under time pressure, say what can be done within the available time and what would require more.

This is not an opportunity to punish the client on fees. It is an opportunity to be transparent. A calm fee note for a defined piece of work is far better than an unbilled hour that later becomes a source of resentment.

The file note that does the work

Good documentation is the firm's best protection. Record the date of the request, who made it, what was sent, what was withheld, the advice given and any reservations expressed. If the other adviser's views are shared with the firm, record a summary and the firm's response. Do not rewrite the original advice retrospectively. If the firm's position changes, add a supplementary note that explains why and when.

Be careful about reliance. Advice prepared for a client is not automatically available for a third party to rely on. If the client asks the firm to confirm that the other adviser or a lender can rely on the advice, treat that as a separate request and consider whether a reliance letter is appropriate. If asked to sign a joint statement, read it carefully before agreeing.

When the other opinion is better

Sometimes the second adviser spots something the firm missed. That is uncomfortable, but it is also useful. Correct the record promptly, tell the client clearly, and consider whether the matter needs partner review or a change to the firm's checking process. A firm that can say, without defensiveness, that the point is fair and here is what we will do about it, usually emerges with more credibility than one that digs in.

Reading the pattern

A single second opinion is usually about the client's circumstances. A pattern is about the firm. If the same client repeatedly seeks external review, the issue may be communication, fee anxiety or a lack of confidence in the advice. If different clients do so on similar matters, it may be worth reviewing templates, supervision or the way risk is explained. A quarterly look at second-opinion requests is a modest quality signal, not a disciplinary file. It can feed into file reviews and training without turning every request into a crisis.

When to escalate internally

Some second-opinion requests are early warnings of something more serious. If the client alleges negligence, threatens a claim, mentions a regulator or disputes fees on the basis of the advice, involve the firm's risk partner and follow the professional indemnity insurance notification policy. Do not admit liability in correspondence. Preserve documents. If the client has already shared the file with another adviser, record that fact. Keep the complaints procedure separate from the technical response to the second opinion.

A short protocol for the next request

Acknowledge the request within one business day. Ask for the question in writing and the identity of the other adviser. Check conflicts and confidentiality. Issue a scope and fee note. Send the minimum necessary material under written authority. File note the exchange. Respond in writing, offer a call if helpful, and record the outcome. Review the pattern at the next practice meeting.

None of this removes the sting of being second-guessed. But it does turn a difficult moment into a controlled process. The client sees a firm that is prepared to be examined. The firm keeps a record that stands up later. And the relationship survives the review, which is usually what everyone wanted in the first place.