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 Iāve seen, the real divide isnāt just good lawyers vs bad lawyers, itās 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, thatās when clients start feeling, unheard, confused, or even sidelined in their own case And thatās 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, itās not just a legal failure itās a breakdown in communication, strategy, and accountability. I also think something that doesnāt get talked about enough is that many clients donāt know what to expect or what questions to ask, which creates an imbalance from the start. Thatās where a good lawyer really separates themselves not just by knowing the law, but by making the client understand the process theyāre 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.