Often one has to think things through, before one can see what is important, and what is not. Sometimes important matters of principle are hidden in modest circumstances; but there is no way of avoiding the question of principle. For example, what is the point in beginning a modest county court action, if it is bound to end in the Court of Appeal? The costs will far exceed any damages that can possibly be recovered. The answer is - only if the client is determined to do so.
So these three things are inextricably woven together; the moral decision, the legal decision as to whether it is a good case or a poor one, and the strategic decision whether the fruits of victory will be worth the effort involved. If one of these decisions is clear, it may blur the significance of one of the other decisions. If the effort required seems out of proportion to the rewards, it may blur the moral imperative to bring the action, whatever the cost. If legally the case seems cut and dried, the enthusiastic lawyer may want to spread his wings, and it may blind him until too late to the fruitlessness of winning, rather than compromising. In legal cases, thinking things through beforehand with care inevitably means that less will go wrong in the play. With thought, sense of perspective is everything; and the ability to shift one's sense of perspective essential to any balanced decision.
It may be different for those uninspired professionals, who are concerned only to play their part with credit and earn their fee, regardless of the result, and whose idea of sending the client away satisfied is to make sure that they themselves never lose face. But if you want to help someone, to be effective, you have to think, long and hard. What is true for the law, I am sure is true for other professions, and other walks of life. There is some truth in Jung's remark that the real sin is lack of consciousness.
It is second nature to the lawyer to regard the proper method of effecting…