As between lawyer and client, who gets to call the shots on strategy and tactics?
<p>This question is a followup on my <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/52680/how-closely-must-a-lawyer-follow-a-clients-directives">earlier one</a>.</p>
<p>Suppose plaintiff is suing for compensation and/or damages in a tort case.</p>
<p>I would guess that the client would have the greater say on strategic matters. For instance, whether to settle or to continue litigation. Probably on which, of several possible defendants, to sue.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I would guess that the lawyer would have the final say on day to day operating decisions, which motions to file, which procedures to follow, what level of discovery to pursue, etc. The client usually doesn't have the expertise to make such decisions, and even if s/he does, &quot;a doctor or lawyer who treats themselves has a fool for a client.&quot;</p>
<p>Are the above distinctions more or less the correct ones? Is it true that the client mostly dictates strategy/priorities, while the lawyer has most of the say on tactics?</p>

<p>The answers to your questions are, generally speaking, contained in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. It's important to note these aren't mandatory across the country, although some states have implemented Rules that closely track them while others have their own Rules.</p>
<p>Start with <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_0_terminology/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Rule 1(e)</a>, which defines <strong>informed consent</strong> as</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the agreement by a person to a proposed course of conduct after the lawyer has communicated adequate information and explanation about the material risks of and reasonably available alternatives to the proposed course of conduct</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Next up is <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_2_scope_of_representation_allocation_of_authority_between_client_lawyer/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Rule 1.2</a>, Scope of Representation &amp; Allocation of Authority Between Client &amp; Lawyer. Subject to two exceptions,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>a lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and, as required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The two exceptions are in Rule 1.2(c) and 1.2(d): an attorney can limit the scope of representation with a specific client after obtaining the client's informed consent and an attorney is forbidden from counseling a client to engage or assist him in engaging in conduct the attorney knows to be illegal/fraudulent.</p>
<p>Finally, as it was mentioned in 1.2, we turn to <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_4_communications/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Rule 1.4</a>, Communications.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(a) A lawyer shall:</p>
<p>(1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with
respect to which the client's informed consent, as defined in Rule
1.0(e), is required by these Rules;</p>
<p>(2) <strong>reasonably consult with the client about the means</strong> by which the
client's objectives are to be accomplished;</p>
<p>(3) <strong>keep the client reasonably informed</strong> about the status of the
matter;</p>
<p>(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and</p>
<p>(5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the
lawyer's conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects
assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other
law.</p>
<p>(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary
to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the
representation.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(emphasis added)</p>
<p>Your question was</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Are the above distinctions more or less the correct ones?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The answer is yes and no.  As to the objective of the representation, the client makes that decision.  How to arrive at that outcome is not as cut-and-dry. From the language in the above Rules, there is not one party or the other who has the &quot;final say.&quot; (I say this notwithstanding the fact that, because the client can't go file something on his own, <em>technically</em> the lawyer has final say as he or she is the one who must file a document with the court). Major decisions in the litigation have to be explained to the client and, after that, the client must give consent approving the decision.</p>
<p>How does this work in real life? Frankly, it will depend on the client and the lawyer.</p>
<p>And don't worry, the phrase &quot;a doctor or lawyer who treats themselves has a fool for a client&quot; is not only apt, it's common sense. When a person is involved in a conflict, their point of view is skewed in their favor and to represent themselves is risk their blindspots leading to unnecessary potential pitfalls throughout the case.</p>

<h2>He who pays the piper calls the tune</h2>
<p>Your lawyer is at your service. Unless you think they will pull out, you can ask them to do all sorts of stuff: sue or settle, file motions, stand on one foot, make you a cup of coffee etc. They may nicely ask to clarify whether you are sure you want them to do what you ask them to, explain you the pros/cons/possible consequences and ask again but, ultimately, <strong>you</strong> get to call all shots.</p>
<p>The only law around that is that your lawyer must either follow your instructions (whether those are tactics, strategy, priorities or just some fun) or stop being your lawyer.</p>

united-states lawyer