Outcomes followed the issues of attitudes and behaviour in generating two alterna­tive perspectives.

The formal interviews saw lawyers from all firms emphasise that they worked to give voice to the clients' wishes. In contrast, the participant observation showed that, when it came to outcomes, lawyers attempted to speak over the clients.

I begin exploring this question by addressing the professionally prescribed role of the lawyer to give advice and take instructions. In reality - and in line with previous research in this area - I argue that they actually appeared to impart both. I go on to show that the typical academic assessment of this situation has been critical, posit­ing that lawyers controlled clients. I then acknowledge that lawyers might make the plausible sounding claim in response that these academics are out of touch, and that lawyers know what their clients want better than an academic ever could. However, it is shown that lawyers ultimately sought to fool their clients into opting for the course of action favoured by the lawyer, or, when that failed, manipulating the impression the client formed of the lawyer's, often ineffective, efforts on their behalf. These results were achieved through confidence tricks, most notably spook­ing the client and pyrotechnics. As such, I conclude that lawyers were able to take advantage of their clients' vulnerability, so that the influence they exerted over choices presented a threat to the lawyer-client relationship. Indeed, I suggest that it can be conceptualised as a form of client abuse.