header-logo header-logo

Client phobia

02 October 2008
Issue: 7339 / Categories: Features , Risk management , Profession
printer mail-detail

Feeling client phobic? Simon Young has just the remedy

This job would be so much easier if it weren’t for the clients!
Well, possibly, but rather less well remunerated! What’s the matter this time?

They keep changing their minds. They start off by wanting one thing, and then change to ask for something else.
Have you ever thought that that might be your fault, not theirs? Remember that, under rule 2, the first element of the client care requirements is that you must identify what the client’s objectives are in relation to the work to be done. Sometimes, we can have a tendency to see a matter in our terms, not the client’s. We assume, from our day-to-day involvement, that every client in a particular type of work wants the same thing. It may well not be true. How often do you hear people say: “All I really wanted was an apology”, when we’ve been assuming it was the money they were after? Can you always say that you have sat down with the client, right at the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll