Identifying client needs and goals

Task 14 in Action: Put the Client’s Target Before the Tactic

The governing law in a client-needs problem is the law supplied with the item, applied through the lawyer’s duty to identify a workable course toward the client’s lawful objective. The NCBE specification for this chapter is Task 14: determine the best strategy to identify the client’s needs and achieve their stated goals. Skills items supply the governing law, and the exam measures what the reader does with it. Any task may assess skills from any skill group, so the grouping is not an exclusive boundary.

Run Task 14 as a sequence. First, separate the client’s desired result from the proposed means. “File today,” “send a demand letter,” or “sue immediately” may be instructions about means, not the actual objective. Ask what the client needs to be true at the end, what must be avoided, and what limits matter: timing, expense, privacy, relationship preservation, business continuity, or tolerance for uncertainty. The consequence is a usable target against which strategies can be tested.

Second, test legal achievability against the supplied law. If the requested result is legally unavailable, do not optimize an impossible plan or imply that persistence will change the rule. Explain the obstacle and redirect the client toward the closest lawful alternative. If the result is legally permitted but uncertain, preserve that distinction: a possible route is not a promised outcome.

Third, screen for urgency and irreversibility. A deadline, threatened loss of a right, destruction of evidence, loss of housing or employment, or an action that cannot readily be undone changes the order of work. Protect the client’s position first, even if the full recommendation must wait. A client’s anxiety or the importance of the matter alone does not establish urgency.

Fourth, identify only the missing facts that could change the choice among strategies. If a fact would change the legal route, deadline, cost, risk, or feasibility, investigate it promptly. If it would merely make the file more complete without changing the decision, it should not delay protective action or advice. Ask the client for personal goals and constraints; obtain documents or outside facts when the issue is objectively verifiable.

Fifth, compare at least the genuinely available routes. For each route, ask: Does it advance the stated result? Does it respect the client’s constraints? What are its foreseeable benefits, burdens, risks, timing, cost, and reversibility? The best strategy is not automatically the most aggressive or fastest. It is the route, or sequence of routes, that best fits the client’s priorities after material tradeoffs are made visible.

Finally, give a recommendation with reasons, identify what remains uncertain, and confirm the next action. The client sets the objective; the lawyer supplies professional judgment about means. If the client rejects a recommended means, the lawyer does not silently substitute it. If the client’s stated objective cannot be pursued lawfully or practically, the lawyer helps select a revised objective rather than treating the original instruction as self-executing.

Use this order for the first decisive fork. A terminal box identifies the next action; it does not mean that later comparison or follow-up will never occur.

Loading diagram…

If the goal is achievable and no urgent harm threatens, targeted factual investigation comes before recommendation only when the facts could change the choice. If the goal is achievable but a deadline is imminent, preserve the position first and then complete the comparison.

Near-Miss Choices: The Fact That Changes the Strategy

Client objective versus lawyer-selected means. If the client says, “Make the other side sign today,” the trigger for clarification is that the statement identifies an action or deadline but not what the client values most. The consequence is to determine whether the real priority is payment, speed, privacy, preserving a relationship, or avoiding litigation. Once the objective and constraints are clear, the lawyer may recommend means; the lawyer may not treat personal preference for litigation, settlement, or publicity as the client’s objective.

Urgency versus importance. A large financial stake does not itself create an emergency. The trigger is a concrete risk that delay will cause a missed deadline, loss of a legal position, destruction of evidence, or another materially irreversible harm. The consequence is different sequencing: take the protective step first, then investigate and compare. Without that trigger, do not use “urgent” to justify skipping the questions that determine the best route.

Decision-critical facts versus complete facts. “We need more information” is not a strategy. The trigger for investigation is a specific unknown whose answer could alter the selected route or its timing, cost, risk, or feasibility. The consequence is focused investigation. Do not postpone action until every potentially relevant record has been collected, especially when a deadline can be preserved without knowing everything.

Legally possible versus likely or guaranteed. The trigger for a feasibility warning is uncertainty about outcome, not legal impossibility. If the supplied law allows an appeal, application, or claim, the lawyer should explain its prospects and burdens rather than call it unavailable. The consequence is calibrated advice: the client can choose a lawful but risky route with an accurate understanding of uncertainty.

Best strategy versus first tactic. Filing, calling, negotiating, and investigating are tactics. The trigger for choosing among them is the client’s objective together with the governing law, urgency, and material constraints. The consequence is a sequence tailored to the problem. Sometimes filing is the best protective tactic; sometimes it is premature, and sometimes a protective filing must be paired with negotiation or factual development.

Advice versus substitution of judgment. The trigger for a recommendation is that the available routes have been compared in relation to the client’s stated priorities. The consequence is a reasoned recommendation, not an order that conceals tradeoffs. The lawyer should not promise success, choose a different objective, or pursue a rejected means merely because it seems professionally preferable.

Recurring errors include:

• Treating Maya’s wish to stay open Saturday as her only priority ignores her stated limits on cost, refunds, and public conflict.

• Waiting for every lease and contractor record before filing disregards the supplied Thursday deadline.

• Calling certification “guaranteed” converts a legally available possibility into an unsupported promise.

• Choosing an appeal because it is aggressive rather than because it fits the client’s priorities confuses a tactic with a strategy.

• Saying the lawyer alone chooses among appeal, certification, and a temporary kitchen violates the supplied allocation of client objectives and lawyer recommendations.

One Deadline, Three Routes: A Select-Two Strategy Item

The item supplies this authority:

Client Strategy Rule: The lawyer must reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be pursued. The client decides the objectives of the representation. The lawyer may recommend a means, but may not pursue a means the client has rejected. Before asking the client to choose among material means, the lawyer must explain their reasonably foreseeable benefits, burdens, risks, and timing. The lawyer must act with reasonable promptness when delay could materially harm the client.

City Food-Safety Ordinance: A timely appeal from a closure notice filed before 5 p.m. Thursday permits operation pending review. An appeal filed after closure does not stay closure. The city may withdraw a closure after receiving certification from a licensed inspector.

Maya owns a bakery that has filled wedding orders for Saturday. On Tuesday, a city inspector posted a closure notice because the bakery’s grease-trap certification was missing. Maya told Luis, her lawyer, “I need to stay open Saturday,” but added that she could spend no more than $4,000, wanted to avoid a public fight with the city, and might accept closing if she could refund customers without losing the business. The city clerk told Luis that an appeal filed by 5 p.m. Thursday would permit operation pending review; after closure, an appeal would not stop the closure. A licensed contractor says certification may be available Monday. Maya has not investigated whether a neighboring kitchen is available, and Luis has the closure notice but not the contractor’s written estimate.
The city’s supplied authority is reproduced above.

Three Decision Checks: Goal, Urgency, and Choice

High-Yield Points - ⚡ Biggest Takeaways

Translate the client’s proposed tactic into a result, constraints, and priorities before choosing a strategy. Preserve a concrete deadline or irreversible position before gathering facts that cannot change the decision. Recommend means by comparing lawful routes against the client’s stated objectives, risks, costs, and timing.