Do you have some legal authority to cite for your position?. I have seen two cases in which willful ignorance when there was a need for inquiry has had some unfortunate results for the defendants. I testified as a witness, and was in the court room when the guilty verdict was returned. If there is a matter of fraudulent documents being recorded the fact that you were acting on your client's instructions is not a defense if you knew of the fraud from your research or if you had a duty to make inquiry, but failed to do so. if anything I would think it would make you an accessory.

"We were acting on orders." Seems to me I remember that defense being raised at the Nuremburg Trials. Although a much more grave issue involved...the defense did not work there either.

The issue raised in this thread is that of fraudulent documents rather than flawed documents. It would seem flawed documents would be a matter for your e& o insurance carrier. Fraudulent documents (i.e. forged signatures, violation of fiduciary duty tantamount to theft.etc. ) would be a matter for criminal prosecution. It would seem to me that your expertise in the field of abstracting would impose a heightened duty on you to make the appropriate inquiry when it comes to your attention.