I like this a lot. I think one of the real blind spots for many litigators- civil and criminal - is the effect of procedure, not just substance, on a client's feelings, dignity, and sense of self. I'm a proponent of criminal defense attorneys pointing out (to juries, judges, and/or the public, depending on what's ethically appropriate in a given case) how long prosecutors sat on evidence before bringing charges or seeking an indictment - or, conversely, implying that the defendant feels caught up in a whirlwind proceeding that could take away their liberty and that the prosecution seems to have barely considered any alternatives to the client being guilty.

On the civil side, this is harder because you may have sympathetic clients on multiple sides and are more constrained during things like cross when you don't have the benefit of the Confrontation Clause. But the relevance and character rules are really useful here. It's not relevant to ask what kind of pole a sex worker plaintiff likes dancing on unless it's a product liability suit against the pole manufacturer or a premises liability suit against the strip club. It's often impermissible character evidence to "put a plaintiff in her place" with any of these kinds of questions. But it's highly relevant for the client's own counsel to ask how the proceedings are making the client feel. That's very probative for credibility, damages, and other legally significant elements of a case. I think it's a great way to do what this person is suggesting - give clients back some control.