I don't think there is a standard answer to this question in every lawyer's mind, and my general way of dealing with it is to watch people put food on the plate (not to talk about people and talk nonsense).
Yes, that's right, it is to treat people differently, I personally understand that everyone's social experience, knowledge, personality, circle, age and other factors often lead to very different views on the same thing for us, so when I encounter disagreements with the parties in the process of handling the case, I may take different countermeasures.
1. For the kind of parties who have rich social experience, a more rational personality, and clearly know their own demands.
If it is a legal issue (if I am more confident), then I will insist on making my own opinion and lay out the basis to let him know that my understanding is correct; And if it is outside the law, such as the strategy of dealing with problems, especially commercial cases, most of them are old fritters who have been crawling in a certain field for many years (no derogatory, I have a narrow range of knowledge, so I think it is actually quite good to say this), then I will generally ponder and ponder the points they put forward, and then ponder and ponder, he insists on the meaning behind it, of course, most of the time I will go straight to the topic to ask, if he can say why, I think it is indeed no problem from his point of view, then I am also willing to follow along, It's not bad to be a little minion, as an executor, you can actually get some rest from the nerves that collapse every day, and of course you can learn a lot of other things, which I am happy to do, study hard and improve every day.
Second, for those parties who are indecisive, suffer from gains and losses, and look forward to doing things.
In fact, this kind of client is often fighting with another self when making every choice, and the vacillation between plan A and plan B, so strictly speaking, it is not a disagreement with the lawyer, and this kind of party will put pressure on the lawyer when he can't make up his mind, "Lawyer Yang, I have entrusted you, and I must fully believe in you, so you think I can do better .......""Think about this kind of person who fights with himself, our lawyer says that plan a is good, he will really think that plan a is good, but whenever we give a suggestion, he has a hundred thousand whys, if so...., so how will it be....(Write this to suffocate me for a minute). When I often encounter this kind of party, I first need to patiently analyze the possible risks and pros and cons of plan A and plan B, in fact, I said these but anyone who understands knows how to choose, but this kind of person is not, or will be entangled, tangled, tangled, they may send you WeChat at one o'clock in the middle of the night, and may also say their concerns at five o'clock in the morning, then at this time I think I still have to come to some hard goods, force them, the most typical party, he sometimes calls me ** I may not know what I want to express, but when I need to make a decision at a critical time, I am sick again, and after communicating n times, I really can't help but really want him to pass that level and make a quick decision, so in ** I really roared at him (now that I think about myself, I really...)., thank you to the client for still trusting me), gave him a deadline (before 9 o'clock the next morning), and then that night he made the decision that he actually wanted to make in the first place, but he had a lot of trouble with himself in the middle.
Third, there is another kind of client, who is really a chicken thief, and has no trust in the lawyer at all, and may seem to them that the lawyer is a tool that can be used.
I have encountered a kind of client who does not trust the lawyer at all, and contradicts the lawyer, they conceal some very key facts, sometimes the lawyer is very passive, and even will be criticized by the judge, and whenever there is a problem, the lawyer is the one who bears the blame, and I still can't understand what the purpose of their lawyer is. What I remember most is a case at the beginning of 22, and he was reluctant to talk about some basic information in the future, and what he said was carte blanche entrusted to me. The judge who happened to handle his case had handled a few cases of him before, and he knew him very well, and he was also called the best judge, and he also gave me tips on the risk when communicating, and ** strongly asked him to appear in court, so I know a lot of information on the side, comprehensive analysis, I have been trying to give him the mediation work, give him the best to stop the loss, and his understanding of my behavior is that I am too soft, the attitude is not tough at all, and I don't give him a basis to fight (mn, the legal relationship is there, I can't say that the dead are alive and the black are white), After communication, I insisted on my point of view and gave him full risk warning, but he still insisted that he was right, and later changed the lawyer (the judge was surprised when he found out, and said to me that you are so good to him, he actually wants to change the lawyer, ashamed for a second). Later, he insisted on his point of view, but the verdict did not support his claim at all... After that, he didn't contact me again, I don't know if he thought I was really for his good and didn't come to harass me again, thank you very much.
The above are the three typical parties I can think of at present, and the corresponding measures that may be taken when they disagree with them, most of which are still effective.