Final answer:
A requirement for attorney review of a licensee's contracts is a limitation aimed at ensuring professional standards and compliance. This is reflected in cases like Strickland v. Washington and Padilla v. Kentucky which highlight the responsibilities of lawyers to provide competent counsel and inform clients of legal consequences.
Step-by-step explanation:
A requirement that all contracts of a licensee be reviewed by an attorney is an example of a limitation. This can be understood within the context of legal practice where certain measures are taken to ensure the competence and compliance of professionals. In landmark cases like Strickland v. Washington and Padilla v. Kentucky, the importance of competent legal counsel has been emphasized, particularly in matters where ineffective counsel could lead to significant adverse consequences such as deportation. The requirement for attorney review is likely aimed at maintaining a high standard of practice.
For example, Strickland v. Washington sets forth the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel, necessitating both a deficiency in performance and a resulting prejudice. Similarly, Padilla v. Kentucky highlights the duty of criminal defense attorneys to advise clients about the deportation risks associated with convictions, illustrating the responsibilities lawyers have in specific scenarios. These cases highlight the critical nature of legal guidance and the potential limitations set to ensure proper conduct and protect clients' interests.