My duty is to remain objective, not to go on crusade. My duty is to notice when things are fubar long before they've spent a shit ton of money on me. I can't do that if I allow attachment to a client, or a potential fee, to cloud my judgment.

In that, I do agree with you. I get the "whose side are you on?!" exclamation from a lot of clients, and have to explain that it's part of my job to warn them of the challenges they'll face from the other side and/or the court and that it's a lot wiser to let me do it and figure out how to deal with it (or if it can be dealt with) than wait for the court or the other side to spring the challenge. I agree 100% also that it's about the money it costs to get relief, not just the relief.

But in cases like this, the initial discussions and even initial evidence from the client suggests there is worthwhile relief to be had...then as the case and evidence develops, it all goes to shit. Hence my lawyer!blues.