Because it's true. 

Is the thing going to be serious, or not?  If you think not, then monitoring it won't make any difference because it won't be serious.  If you think it could be serious, then you should be monitoring it whether or not there are lawyers in the world.  Are you saying that the only reason you would take this thing seriously is because of lawyers?  Then thank God there are lawyers. 

If you blow it off and it turns out to be serious, then you made a mistake, you were wrong.  Then becomes the question of whether you were negligent.  Would others in your profession have also blown it off?  If so, then it wasn't negligence.

Doctors often think that if they don't do something- a test, document a finding, etc-- they'll get sued.  "I have to check the level."  "I have to document "no suicidality.""  "I have do an AIMS test."  "I have to give him a copy of the PI."  The reason is "I'll get sued if I don't."

But lawyers can't sue you for not doing these things.  They only sue you when something bad happens.    If nothing bad happens, you could be drawing penguins in your chart, lawyers will never know. 

Forget about lawyers. Be a doctor: do you need to check that thing, or not?  

If your clinical behavior is significantly different because of the existence of lawyers, you need a massive overhaul of your thinking and practice.  You have lost your way.  And patients will suffer.

(See #4.)