i rarely leave the neutral zone

i think im the type of lawyer that clients find depressing. i only smile when i greet them and its not even a good smile since its not in my nature to smile.

when i review the client's case, i always try to look at the worst case scenario, thus optimism can only be seen outside my window on sunny days. when i tell them my opinion, i tell it as objectively as possible and make sure i dont give them the impression that would get their hopes up since some clients have the tendency to misunderstand or force what they want to believe i said. when the case has a good chance of winning, i tell it with a blank face with a cautious tone because some clients interpret a good chance of winning as 100% victory. if the case is something difficult to litigate, i tell them straight away. if there's no possibility of winning, i do the same thing and ask them to seek a second opinion and hope that the other lawyer would find something i didnt see. my facial expression always gives the impression of 50-50 with my tone of voice leaning on the negative half.

during hearings, i try not to talk to the client. i prefer observing the other scheduled hearings. after the hearing, i try to answer whatever questions the clients have, like clarifications on what transpired during the hearing. i try to deliver my answers in a neutral manner, not to reflect any kind of bias. of course i should be an advocate of my client's cause but i try not to internalize it that i might lose my objectivity in handling the case. having a clear view of the case is important for me to make sure i dont become close minded. as one law professor said, one shouldnt swallow everything a client gives. defend the client to the best of your abilities but that doesnt mean you can only do it by believing in everything a client says. thats why i always have reservations on what clients tell me. this is easy for me to do since im born a skeptic. whether they do it intentionally or not, clients will always be biased and i must see the picture from an objective point of view as much as possible in order to handle the case well. unfortunately for my clients, i can only do that by being objective all the time thus i show no sympathy or compassion whenever i talk to them even if their condition would be heartbreaking for some people. i just tell them what i think like an emotionless automaton.

there was one instance when i asked a client, who just lost her husband who died after being stabbed to death, about her case and started saying she's grieving and how bad it is to have lost her husband, i kept telling her to just focus on my questions and only provide relevant answers. i didnt say it rudely but i didnt show any concern that she's still grieving. i also kept hinting that she's planning to sue the wrong people and her perception of the case is clouded because she's pointing the blame on the wrong people. she keeps on narrating how tragic her case was and forcing her belief that such particular persons should be made responsible when after an objective review of the case, the persons she wants to sue arent really guilty at all. i really dont know how to tell it to her so i just kept saying my opinion objectively. i cant hide the fact that my only concern was to get an objective picture of her case. clients who try to appeal for sympathy and pity really irritates me because its difficult to get a good picture of their case or if i do get a clear picture, their minds are closed to whatever is not in accordance to what they believe or perceive.