When an advocate should turn down a potential client

Disrespect, overfamiliarity, demands for guaranteed results, and a reluctance to take the necessary steps may indicate a risk of conflict between an advocate and a client. It is important to identify these warning signs during the initial conversation, before entering into a legal services agreement.

This topic was discussed during the webinar «Not every client is your client: how to tell if a client Is ready to cooperate and recognize a conflict right from the start», hosted by the UNBA NextGen in the Mykolaiv region. The moderator and presenter was the Committee’s regional representative Anna Zlatina and the speaker was psychologist Yana Gaevska.

Among the first warning signs of a risky collaboration, Y. Gaevska cited disrespect, overfamiliarity, and shifting all responsibility onto the professional. According to her, the client must participate in the process, specifically by taking the actions necessary to achieve the desired outcome. When a person expects the advocate to single-handedly secure the desired result, this can serve as grounds for refusing to work together.

A. Zlatina explained that before entering into a contract, the advocate should explain to the client, as transparently as possible, the challenges and strengths of the situation, the potential risks, and the approximate likelihood of achieving the desired outcome. It is also advisable to specify the list of actions for which the advocate assumes responsibility. If the client continues to demand a 100% guarantee after this, the advocate may refuse to cooperate or explicitly state in the contract that there is no guarantee of a specific outcome.

A red flag may be the client demonstratively shifting all responsibility for the case onto the advocate. Phrases like «I trust you» or «you’ll make everything work out» sound positive on their own, but in certain contexts can imply an expectation that the professional will do all the work and guarantee the result. This pattern is also indicated by a situation where the client is required to provide documents or take other actions but fails to do so.

The advocate also cautioned against situations where a client asks who needs to be paid and how much to resolve the issue. According to her, such proposals create risks related to improper benefits, and the person may be approaching the advocate with a hidden or provocative agenda.

To assess a person’s readiness for constructive cooperation, Y. Gaevska advised asking specific questions: what the client has already done, what materials they have, and what outcome they expect. The person asking the questions guides the conversation and can structure the inquiry. A chaotic account of the circumstances without clarification makes it difficult to define the task and creates the conditions for unrealistic expectations.

At the same time, a single expression of dissatisfaction does not necessarily mean that cooperation is impossible. The psychologist advised first seeking a compromise and explaining one’s position, relying on facts and professional expertise. When a client does not accept the arguments, continues to pressure, and rejects the proposed solutions, it is advisable to politely conclude the conversation.