Now as I do agree with both of you, especially the point about humility being essential in this field but I think the issue goes a layer deeper than just personality or ego. From what I’ve seen, the real divide isn’t just good lawyers vs bad lawyers, it’s lawyers who see themselves as service providers vs. lawyers who see themselves as controllers of the process. When a lawyer leans too far into control, that’s when clients start feeling, unheard, confused, or even sidelined in their own case And that’s usually where the reputation problem begins. The example mentioned about the immigration case is a perfect illustration. When someone pays that level of fees and still ends up exposed to that kind of risk, it’s not just a legal failure it’s a breakdown in communication, strategy, and accountability. I also think something that doesn’t get talked about enough is that many clients don’t know what to expect or what questions to ask, which creates an imbalance from the start. That’s where a good lawyer really separates themselves not just by knowing the law, but by making the client understand the process they’re in. To me, humility in law looks like explaining without overcomplicating, being honest about risks, not just outcomes and making sure the client is actually part of the strategy, not just reacting to it Because at the end of the day, legal skill gets you results but trust is what keeps a client from feeling like they were just processed through a system.