I told a client another firm might be a better fit. I also told them things they did not want to hear, including where they had contributed to their own situation. I made it clear that they owed me nothing and could walk away.
They set out their position. I did not immediately propose a solution. I explained the situation back from their perspective, including the other people involved and the pressures in play. That was when they decided to instruct.
The first conversation can easily become a performance: credentials, methods, reassurance and a promise to get moving. Meanwhile, the client is deciding whether the person opposite them has understood the problem at all.
I want that conversation to establish something useful. What has happened? What does the client believe it means? Where do the accounts conflict? What are the other people trying to achieve? There may be parts of the explanation that need challenging, including the client’s own assumptions.
Candour is part of the work. So is leaving someone free to decide. An investigation begins on a better footing when both sides understand the question and the limits of what is known.
Adapted from Neel’s LinkedIn post of 7 April 2026.
Receive publication updates ↗