Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 79-29-920 (2026)
Responsibility for professional services
✓ current as of July 2026
- (1) Each individual who renders professional services as an employee of a domestic or foreign professional limited liability company is liable for a negligent or wrongful act or omission in which the member personally participates to the same extent as if the member rendered the services as a sole practitioner. A member or an employee of a domestic or foreign professional limited liability company is not liable, however, for the conduct of other members or employees of the limited liability company, except a person under the member's direct supervision and control, while rendering professional services on behalf of the professional limited liability company to the person for whom such professional services were being rendered.
- (2) A domestic or foreign professional limited liability company whose employees perform professional services within the scope of their employment or of their apparent authority to act for the limited liability company is liable to the same extent as its employees.
Laws, 2010, ch. 532, § 1, eff. 1/1/2011.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2021 · leading case: Keszenheimer v. Boyd, 897 So. 2d 190 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004).
Keszenheimer v. Boyd, 897 So. 2d 190 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). “Miss.Code Ann. § 79-29-920(1) (Rev.2001).”
Angela T. Lairy, Turner & Assocs., PLLC, Carolyn T. Karriem & the Est. of Bennie L. Turner v. Lori Chandler (Miss. Ct. App. 2021). “Miss. Code Ann. §79-29-920 (1) (emphasis added).”
Gaudet v. Howard L. Nations, APC (E.D. La. 2020). “55 Plaintiffs assert that the Nicks Defendants have not, and cannot, show that the identity of any of their clients is protected by the attorney-client privilege because the privilege only protects communications between attorneys and their clients.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 79-29-920(1) — 2 cases
Keszenheimer v. Boyd, 897 So. 2d 190 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). “Miss.Code Ann. § 79-29-920(1) (Rev.2001).”
Gaudet v. Howard L. Nations, APC (E.D. La. 2020). “55 Plaintiffs assert that the Nicks Defendants have not, and cannot, show that the identity of any of their clients is protected by the attorney-client privilege because the privilege only protects communications between attorneys and their clients.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.