lawyer
How closely must a lawyer follow a client&#39;s directives?
<p>A plaintiff launches a lawsuit with a very complicated set of facts and law. The client says, &quot;I want you to focus on issues X, Y, and Z, because those are the ones that I am most comfortable and familiar with, and forget about, or at least downplay other issues. The law firm replies, &quot;there are plenty of other issues here that could generate a higher award if we delve into them. The law firm then proceeds to do so, at the neglect of the client's three main concerns.</p>
<p>Does the lawyer have the right to do this? How closely must the law firm focus on issues X, Y, and Z if the fee arrangement is 1) &quot;straight fee,&quot; versus 2) &quot;mostly contingency&quot;?</p>
<p>(I would guess that the lawyer would have a greater right to underweight the client's preference if the client provided mainly the &quot;opportunity&quot; and counsel is taking most of the financial risk via contingency. Whereas, if it were &quot;straight fee,&quot; then the client would be paying the lawyer to &quot;ventilate&quot; issues X, Y, and Z in court.)</p>

<p>Issues of strategy rest with counsel, not the client. Thus, in the situation you posit, the lawyer is not required to follow the client's desires.</p>
<p>One might observe, however, that a competent lawyer will avoid the conflict entirely by addressing the issue <em>before</em> accepting the client. If the client is firm in wanting to direct the lawyer's negotiation or litigation strategy, and the lawyer is unwilling to do so, the lawyer should decline to take on the case.</p>
<p>When I practiced, prospective clients who wanted to run things were very politely declined and shown the door. I don't see anything unethical about accepting such conditions from a prospective client, but the attorney isn't required to do so, and can decline the employment.</p>

<h2>A lawyer has a duty to exercise professional judgement</h2>
<p>In some jurisdictions this is an ethical duty, in others it has the force of law.</p>
<p>For example, in <a href="/questions/tagged/new-south-wales" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;new-south-wales&#39;" rel="tag">new-south-wales</a> <a href="https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2015/244/part2/divadvocacyan/rule17" rel="nofollow noreferrer">rule 17</a> of the <em>Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015</em> requires:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A solicitor representing a client in a matter that is before the court must not act as the mere mouthpiece of the client or of the instructing solicitor (if any) and must exercise the forensic judgments called for during the case independently, after the appropriate consideration of the client’s and the instructing solicitor’s instructions where applicable.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/new-zealand" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;new-zealand&#39;" rel="tag">new-zealand</a></p>
<p>The first thing a lawyer <a href="http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2008/0214/latest/DLM1437811.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">must</a> do is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>act competently, in a timely way, and in accordance with instructions
received and arrangements made</p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, lawyers (like any professionals) don't like to be micro-managed. They prefer to take just your <em>goals</em> as instructions (versus <em>your</em> preferred ways of achieving them).</p>
<p>Where a lawyer fails to see that a new client will be trying to micro-manage them and realises that in the middle of the process, they basically have two options: give in or give up. Being stubborn will be just against the rules of conduct.</p>

<h2>Monitoring your lawyer's work is part of your job as a client.</h2>
<p>You need to know what aspects of the case the lawyer is working on, and how much time is being spent on it.  It's not unreasonable to ask to see daily bills.</p>
<p>Yes, you get to direct how the lawyer spends your money.  If you don't want something pursued for a reason of yours, then you get to dictate that.  For instance some states sadly fail to protect the <em>corpus</em> of capital in IRAs and trusts from litigation. Those states are wrong.  Needless to say I will not target that <em>corpus</em> and that's my decision,  on principle. (But I'll happily garnish the revenue stream).</p>
<p>It's your money. You decide how it's spent.</p>
<p>If you choose to fund your lawyering via contingency, you're letting the brakes off the crazy train. You aren't the client...  <em>you're the product</em>.  <strong>The attorneys who depend on recovery for their paycheck are the functional clients</strong>.   The crazy train goes where it wants to, and if that hurts people you care about or does things you find unfair or unethical, you have no one to blame but yourself.</p>
