In one case, a client insisted on pursuing a defamation lawsuit over statements made online that, while offensive, did not meet the legal threshold for actionable harm under our jurisdiction. Their goal was to "clear their name," but legally, the claim lacked merit and risked backfiring with a SLAPP motion. To bridge the gap between emotion and reality, I explained not only the legal standards but also the reputational and financial costs of litigation. I proposed an alternative route: a well-crafted cease-and-desist letter that conveyed seriousness without escalating into a losing legal battle. Simultaneously, we engaged a communications consultant to manage public messaging more constructively. The client ultimately appreciated the dual strategy. It protected their image, avoided unnecessary litigation, and reestablished control of the narrative—achieving their goal through legally sound means. This experience reinforced the importance of guiding clients with empathy while firmly anchoring advice in legal realities.
On occasion in family law a client will express goals that do not match a realistic or reasonable legal outcome. Despite best screening practices and despite open and honest conversations with clients during initial consultation appointments, some clients will provide instructions or seek results that do not align with their legal realities. Thankfully this does not happen in the majority of cases (perhaps because of the above-referenced screening practices), but at times, I have had clients make requests/demands that are unlikely to be delivered. On these occasions, I find that though a quick phone call to touch base and repeat my advice can be helpful, what most often makes the difference is a face to face meeting (nowadays, this can include zoom). On one occasion it helped to have a colleague in on the meeting, which allowed the client to hear a legal opinion from two different lawyers supported by case law that we has pulled in advance and sent to the client. When allowed some time to process their matter, consider the legal advice that they are being provided with and put aside the emotions that generally come with divorce and separation, most clients adjust their approach.
As a criminal tax lawyer, I have experienced on several occasions that clients' expectations do not match the legal reality - whether due to ignorance, wishful thinking or strategic misjudgements. In one specific case, the client insisted on submitting a voluntary self-disclosure, even though the requirements for it to be exempt from prosecution had long since ceased to be met, for example because investigations had already been initiated. In such situations, my primary goal is to create transparency. I take the time to explain the legal situation to the client in clear, understandable language, including the risks and limitations. I work with scenarios to make the consequences of a certain course of action tangible - both in the best and worst case scenarios. At the same time, it is important to respect the client's economic, personal and business objectives. I therefore look for legal alternative strategies that are as close as possible to his interests. In the case mentioned above, I worked with the client to develop a defense strategy that relied on cooperation with the investigating authorities and restitution. Although this did not lead to impunity, it did result in the proceedings being discontinued subject to conditions.
Explained to client clearly and in writing what the legal principles were so they could review same and provide updated instructions. After the client was fully informed of the law, I would still put forward his/her position and offer and see if the other party would agree to same.
When a client's goals aren't aligned with legal realities, it's important to strike a balance between being honest and being supportive. I've found that transparency is key, even if the message is hard to hear. In one case, a client was determined to pursue a legal claim that, while emotionally understandable, had no real legal merit. Instead of saying "no," I explained the legal standards involved, how courts typically interpret similar cases, and what pursuing that path would likely cost in time, money, and emotional energy. I also offered alternative routes that could achieve some of their underlying goals without putting them through unnecessary litigation. In the end, clients appreciate when you're both candid and solution-oriented—it builds trust, even when the answer isn't what they hoped for.
I am a high volume Massachusetts divorce lawyer and mediator and have divorced over 1800 couples. I am a graduate of Brown University and the University of Pennsylvania Law School. I give reality checks to clients every week. Although I am a mediator, and therefore neutral, I am active in sharing my knowledge of the law and divorce practice and precedent in Massachusetts. When a client says, "I am not going to pay child support", I read them the section of the law that explains that child support is presumptive, or automatic, in Massachusetts; I let them know that every judge in the state would order child support in their situations; and I explain that the Massachusetts Department of Revenue will dock a person's check or even seize their property if they fail to pay child support. Whenever a client tries to insist on something that is counter to Massachusetts family law, e.g., "I worked and earned the pension, so I'm going to keep it all", I use my knowledge of the law and common procedure to explain that what they want will not happen. When faced with a patient explanation of the facts, 99% of clients eventually come on board. Please include a backlink if you use my quotes! Thanks! Attorney Julia Rueschemeyer Website URL: www.amherstdivorce.com/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/julia-rueschemeyer-61650988/ Headshot: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KYPIigrrvqsmhQeykDJEDLpKXxhVkDnR/view?usp=sharing
As attorneys, we face a tough job: getting client goals to match legal facts. For me, a common issue arises with healthcare provider clients. They feel wronged. They want a specific legal outcome. This is often driven by feelings. Legal facts, proof, or costs make their plan unlikely. The challenge is handling strong hopes. My plan uses honest, firm teaching. We shift our focus. First, I talk clearly. I explain the law that applies and I detail what needs proof. I lay out the real facts we have. I use simple words and brief sentences like how I am writing now. They understand what they really get for their money. Second, I gently but firmly move the conversations along. We focus on what they truly want in business or life and the VALUE of that outcome.
At Astra Trust, we often work with international clients whose goals—such as full anonymity, absolute asset control, or aggressive tax minimization—don't always align with the legal and regulatory frameworks of the jurisdictions they're considering. One notable example involved a client seeking an offshore trust structure, with the expectation that the trust could remain fully revocable, undisclosed, and exempt from all reporting obligations. While the client's concerns were valid from a privacy standpoint, the reality is that global transparency standards (e.g., CRS, AML laws, economic substance rules) have significantly narrowed what's permissible. To resolve this, we reframed the structure to prioritize privacy within compliance—implementing a discretionary trust with a licensed trustee, limited reserved powers, and robust governance aligned with OECD standards. We also introduced the idea of philanthropic engagement (via a donation to a regional university), which helped reposition the client's profile in a more positive and legally credible light.
There are times when a client's goals don't align with what the law realistically allows. In those situations, I focus on clear, empathetic communication. I start by validating their concerns so they feel heard, then walk them through the legal landscape, using real-world examples or potential outcomes to help clarify the limitations. One approach that's worked well is presenting them with a range of legally viable options, explaining the risks and benefits of each. This shifts the focus from what can't be done to what can be accomplished, which helps the client regain a sense of control. Most of the time, once they understand the practical and legal boundaries, they're willing to pivot their expectations and work with me on a strategy that protects their interests.
I once worked with a client who wanted to pursue a highly aggressive patent infringement lawsuit, believing it would quickly yield large financial returns. After reviewing the case, I realized that the strength of their claim was much weaker than they expected, and the potential costs far outweighed any probable gains. I took the time to break down the legal realities for them, explaining the risks and limitations in clear, straightforward terms. To align their goals with the legal landscape, we explored alternative dispute resolution options, including licensing and negotiation, which ultimately turned out to be a more cost-effective and pragmatic solution. By focusing on honest communication and realistic expectations, we were able to pivot their strategy without damaging their long-term interests. It was a tough conversation, but it was necessary to prevent costly mistakes and keep their business on track.