People who hire a lawyer tend to assume one of two extremes. Either: “I hired the lawyer, so the lawyer does what I say.” Or: “The lawyer is the professional, so the lawyer now does everything.” Neither is correct.
Litigation operates on a defined division of authority. Without understanding that division, clients either feel powerless or constantly frustrated.
The Client Controls the Objectives
The case belongs to the client. Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2(a) requires a lawyer to abide by the client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation and to consult about the means used to pursue them.
In practical terms, the client decides:
- whether to file a lawsuit;
- whether to settle;
- whether to accept or reject a settlement offer;
- whether to testify;
- whether to appeal; and
- whether to discharge the lawyer.
For example, if a client says, “I will not settle,” the lawyer cannot force a settlement. If a client says, “Accept that offer,” the lawyer cannot veto it. Those decisions belong to the client because the rights at stake are the client’s.
The Lawyer Controls the Lawful Means
Once the objective is set, the lawyer controls how to pursue it, within the bounds of the law.
That includes decisions about:
- what motions to file;
- what legal theories are viable;
- whether to depose a witness;
- how to conduct cross-examination;
- what objections to raise; and
- how to frame arguments.
The client sets the destination. The lawyer navigates the route.
Courts expect lawyers, not clients, to exercise professional judgment in litigation. A client may replace counsel. A client may not commandeer the podium or the table mid-hearing.
Non-Negotiable Ethical Boundaries
There is one category where the lawyer’s authority is absolute: compliance with the law and ethical rules.
A client cannot require a lawyer to:
- file a frivolous motion;
- present false testimony or evidence;
- conceal discoverable documents;
- misrepresent facts to the court;
- sign a pleading without a good-faith legal basis; and
- engage in conduct the lawyer knows is unlawful or fraudulent.
A lawyer’s signature is not a service the client purchases. It is a certification to the court that the document complies with Rule 11 meaning that it is legally supportable and factually grounded. A lawyer cannot sign something that does not meet that standard simply because a client demands it.
Similarly, Rule 26 imposes mandatory disclosure and discovery obligations. A lawyer cannot “hide” documents simply because a client prefers not to produce them.
Zealous advocacy is not license to cheat. Loyalty to a client does not include evading disclosure obligations, concealing responsive documents, or exploiting procedural rules in bad faith. Courts expect lawyers to compete hard within the rules, not outside them.
If a client insists on illegal or unethical conduct, the lawyer must refuse. If the conflict cannot be resolved, Rule 1.16 permits — and sometimes requires — withdrawal. That is not disloyalty. It is professional duty.
When the Client Insists on a Lawful but Unwise Strategy
More often, the disagreement is not about illegality but about judgment.
A client may insist on a strategy that is lawful but unwise. The lawyer may believe it is risky, counterproductive, or likely to fail. That disagreement alone does not give the lawyer veto power. If the objective is lawful, the client owns it.
The lawyer’s obligation is candor. Rule 2.1 requires independent professional judgment and candid advice, including advice the client may not want to hear. That means explaining risks, likely consequences, costs, and realistic outcomes.
If, after being fully informed, the client chooses to proceed anyway, the decision belongs to the client. So do the consequences. Lawyers are not guarantors of results. They are advisors and advocates operating within legal boundaries.
Withdrawal may be appropriate if a disagreement between lawyer and client becomes so fundamental that the lawyer can no longer exercise independent professional judgment or provide effective representation. Courts do not grant withdrawal lightly, particularly once litigation is underway. But neither is a lawyer required to continue in a relationship that has broken down beyond repair. The professional relationship depends on mutual trust and the ability to communicate candidly. When that foundation no longer exists, withdrawal may be the responsible course.
Representation Is Not “Set It and Forget It”
Hiring a lawyer is not a concierge arrangement. Litigation is a collaborative effort between attorney and client.
There are tasks only a client can perform, information only a client possesses, and documents only a client can locate efficiently and affordably. A lawyer cannot invent facts, guess at missing financial records, or respond to discovery without cooperation.
Clients are responsible for:
- providing complete and accurate information;
- gathering financial records and documents;
- responding promptly to requests;
- reviewing drafts carefully before signing; and
- informing counsel of new developments.
When clients delay or disengage and assume the lawyer will “handle everything,” costs increase and deadlines become harder—sometimes even impossible—to meet. Deadlines do not depend upon a client’s level of engagement.
Effective representation requires a client’s active participation throughout. A lawyer supplies legal skill and judgment. A client supplies facts, documents, decisions, and engagement with his/her own case.
Settlement Authority Clarified
Settlement causes recurring confusion.
A lawyer cannot settle a case without the client’s authorization. Rule 1.2(a) reserves that decision to the client. Even if a lawyer believes settlement is wise, the choice belongs to the person whose rights are at stake.
Conversely, settlement authority does not include authority to compel counsel to draft unlawful or unethical terms. Clients control whether to settle. Lawyers ensure the settlement complies with the law.
Why This Matters in Utah Family Court
These distinctions matter most in emotionally charged litigation, especially divorce and child custody cases.
Family court is not governed by the litigants’ subjective desires. It is a rules-based process. Judges expect proportionality, discipline, and admissible evidence.
A parent may want to file repeated motions because the other parent is behaving badly. A lawyer may advise restraint because flooding the docket can damage credibility or alienate the court. Rule 26(b)(1) limits discovery to what is relevant and proportional. Not everything that feels urgent is legally prudent.
Likewise, not every stack of letters from friends is admissible evidence. The lawyer must evaluate what the rules allow.
Understanding who controls what reduces unnecessary conflict between lawyer and client, and keeps the focus on presenting a lawful, credible case.
This Is About Trust, Not Power
The division of authority in litigation is not a struggle for dominance. It is structural.
The client controls the lawful ends.
The lawyer controls the lawful means.
The court enforces the rules.
When that happens, representation functions as intended. When representation breaks down, it is rarely because someone lacks authority. It is usually because the working relationship has fractured.
A lawsuit is not a vehicle for the attorney or client to control the other. It is a structured legal process. Knowing who decides what and the “division of labor” gives both clients and lawyers the clarity about their respective roles they both need so that the litigation process functions effectively.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277