If you have ever taken on a litigation client who questioned every account, resisted advice, or wanted to control strategy to save costs, this risk will feel familiar. Files like these generate a disproportionate number of complaints and claims, not because practitioners lack skill, but because litigation systems for client intake and management struggle under sustained client resistance.
The risk in practice
The husband-and-wife clients in this story may sound familiar to you. They were in dispute with their builder, apparently triggered by continual variations to the contract and being constantly on-site. The builder eventually issued a suspension notice, and the clients sought legal advice.
The practitioner met with the clients twice and advised them on the legal implications of suspension orders and the risks of not paying outstanding amounts and terminating the contract. Early warnings appeared. The clients resisted advice, then sought fee reductions and insisted on managing parts of the case themselves. After losing at trial and facing adverse costs, the clients filed complaints alleging poor advice, inadequate preparation and failure to warn of cost consequences. This file became difficult to defend, even where the advice was broadly sound.
Why this happens
Litigation amplifies normal client stress. When clients are motivated by principle or moral outrage, they can struggle to accept risk-based advice. Fee pressure then nudges practitioners to compromise on boundaries, scope clarity and control of preparation tasks. Over time responsibility fragments, advice becomes harder to evidence, and defensibility weakens.
What to do at key workflow moments
1. At first interview:
a. Screen client suitability by asking one direct intake question: "If the advice I give does not align with what you want to do, how will you decide what happens next?"
b. Look for other early signs that indicate a client may have motivations and character traits that severely affect their ability to take advice despite what they may say.
If you get that sense the client will not listen to you or work well with you do not act for them. Not every client is a good client for you or your firm. They, and you, will be better off working with someone who suits their personality and who they are more likely to listen to.
If you decide to act for the client:
2. Record the client’s answers about accepting advice on the file.
3. Set cost boundaries by discussing with the client:
- which tasks the firm will control, such as strategy, evidence selection, and compliance steps,
- which tasks, if any, the client will perform,
4. Use clear written wording when documenting who does what and the consequences if the client does not do what they have agreed to do.
5. Reassess the retainer after mediation or a significant adverse development by sending a short advice letter outlining merits, cost exposure and settlement consequences, and require confirmation before continuing.
6. Act early when boundaries are breached by documenting the issue, restating advice, and noting the risks.
7. End the retainer before trust collapses by using a structured disengagement checklist once the client repeatedly rejects advice or does not complete agreed tasks, reducing exposure to post-loss complaints.
Claims experience
PLC data indicates that litigation files involving unmanaged client expectations and failure to disengage early account for a significant number and cost of claims. Common outcomes include adverse cost orders and subsequent complaints about advice clarity, preparation and warning of settlement consequences.
Most firms managing litigation risk well use a documented client suitability and continuation checklist to support consistent decision-making.
