I don't think that anyone is actually saying you're wrong medicolegally. As an outside observer, it seems like you and Steve (and some others) are arguing separate points. You're saying that you should follow guidelines or you're harder to defend in court. That makes perfect sense.
Steve is arguing that he believes that stopping AC is a greater risk than not. When it comes to lawsuits, he has evidently been involved in cases where people did follow guidelines and were sued in part or entirely because they followed those guidelines.
The most recent comment you replied to is obviously geography dependent. There are undoubtedly parts of the country where basically everyone holds AC and places where it's more of a mix. I don't doubt that you could make the argument in areas where you're part of the 10% that doesn't hold it that this makes you harder to defend. In more of a mixed environment, this goes back to the society guidelines argument as above.
My question (likely unanswerable) is: what's medicolegally safer? Having someone stop AC with the blessing of neuro/cards and then getting sued when something bad happens? Or having someone continue AC and documenting the risk/benefit discussion with the patient and then getting sued when something bad happens?
My takeaway: You're likely f***ed no matter what if you have a sympathetic plaintiff with a good lawyer regardless of what you did or didn't do.
Personally, I'm in the camp of following the guidelines, getting cards/neuro/whoever to sign off and having a thorough risk/benefit discussion with the patient about doing so while reminding them that everything that I do is elective. After hearing Steve's stories, I will likely be documenting significantly more aggressively about the risks of holding AC than I might have previously.