Câu chuyện thành công

In a March 2024 decision, the USCIS San Jose Field Office reversed its previous denials of our client's I-130 US Citizen's Petition for Spouse and I-485 Green Card Application as a result of our lawsuit in federal court, Northern District of California. Our client, a U.S. Citizen (USC), filed an I-130 spousal petition on behalf of his wife, a citizen of Kenya. The non-US citizen spouse (Beneficiary) simultaneously filed a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (the “I-485 application”), to become a Legal Permanent Resident. Because the Beneficiary stated in previous immigration filings, such as the B1/B2 tourist visa and asylum application, that she was “married” to the father of her children in Kenya, USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) regarding the termination of the marriage. In response to the RFE, our clients provided evidence that the Beneficiary was never legally married in Kenya and that cohabitation is not considered a legal marriage in either Kenya or California, where the marriage with the USC spouse was celebrated. However, USCIS denied the I-130 petition and the I-485 application, finding that our client was not eligible for an immediate relative visa because they failed to prove that the Beneficiary was never married before. Our clients filed a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, asking USCIS to reopen or reconsider the I-130 Denial (“I-290B MTR”) based on extensive evidence and legal arguments that the Beneficiary was never legally married to the father of her children under Kenyan law. Nevertheless, USCIS denied the I-290B MTR (“I-290B Denial”), asserting that only evidence from the “Registrar General” of Kenya had legal authority to establish that the Beneficiary “had never been married in all of Kenya.” Despite submitting all relevant case law, accompanying memoranda of points and authorities, and supporting documentation on the issue of the validity of the Beneficiary's marital status, USCIS remained unresponsive to the record and legal authorities as submitted. The I-290B Denial refused to grant any weight to the additional evidence that our clients submitted. Our clients were faced with the options to refile their case or submit an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Both options would entail extremely long processing times with no clear resolution. The clients were then referred to our office for an evaluation. Attorney Nguyen D. Luu devised an aggressive litigation strategy to immediately advance our client's case in federal court to seek timely adjudication of the matter. We filed a lawsuit on behalf of our clients in federal court against USCIS, challenging its wrongful decision to deny our clients' I-130 and I-485 petitions. Within 60 days after filing the lawsuit, an US Attorney from US Department of Justice headquarter in Washington D.C. informed our office that the USCIS San Jose Field Office had reopened the I-130 and I-485 petitions, and approved our client's green card. The government did not even file an opposition or a response to our lawsuit. The firm is extremely pleased with the complete victory of our federal lawsuit. Our client has received her green card and safely remained with her husband in the U.S. When facing wrongful denials by USCIS, holding the government accountable in the federal court has proven to empower families, individuals, and businesses. Our firm has found it to be the most effective approach in getting immigration cases adjudicated or reverse a wrongful denied decision.

In April 2024, our office successfully sued U.S. Department of State ("DOS") in federal court, forcing DOS to completely reverse course, and approved our client's H-4 visa application. As an F-1 visa international student, our client participated in the OPT program and was hired by Integra. Unbeknownst to the client, Integra appeared to be a possible shell company. Integra used elaborate means to entice mostly Indian students to pay for training in exchange for obtaining temporary employment to fulfill the requirements of F-1 OPT. Integra allegedly promised to provide training services, networking opportunities, and internships perceived to be legitimate employment opportunities. Many F-1 students relied on Integra's promises and received job offers from Integra. After NBC Bay Area's investigation exposed Integra's questionable nature, USCIS and DOS have relentlessly pursued the former students that were previously associated with Integra. USCIS has issued Request for Evidence, Notice of Intent to Deny ("NOID"), interviews by USCIS Fraud Detection Officers, alleging misrepresentation and fraud. Many of the students and former students also received revocation of F-1 visa and H-1B visa from DOS. In 2020, our client received a terrible shock when two DHS officers knocked on the door of their home in Seattle, Washington. The officers asked our client if they had ever been associated with a company called Aztech and told them to make themselves available for an interview. Our client had never heard of such a company. After the officers left, our client researched the company name, discovering that Aztech was associated with Integra, and both companies were under investigation for visa fraud. Our client later left the U.S. and relocated to Canada for a job. However, their spouse remains in the U.S. as a H-1B visa holder. Having been forced to maintain separate households in separate countries for three years, our client sought our office's assistance with their H-4 visa application be united with their spouse in the U.S. Attorney Nguyen D. Luu and our legal team took on representation to assist our clients. Our office filed a new H-4 application for our client and submitted 145 pages of supplemental information to firmly establish that our client did not make any misrepresentation to the U.S. government regarding their past OPT employment and they should not be found inadmissible. Our client then attended an interview at the U.S. Consulate and provided a packet of supporting documents. Following the interview, our client received a telephone call from the consular officer, informing them that their visa would be denied and no waiver was recommended. The Consulate provided no further explanation for its decision, nor did it reveal the grounds for refusing to recommend a waiver of inadmissibility. Due to the imminent harm to our clients, our firm took an aggressive approach to protect our client's rights. We filed a lawsuit against DOS in federal court, Seattle, Washington state. The firm is very pleased to learn that as a result of our lawsuit, DOS has completely reversed course and approved our client H-4 visa application. Our client has recently returned to the U.S. safely. We're extremely pleased that we have reached a complete victory for our clients. If you were previously associated with FINDREAM, SINOCONTECH, Integra Technologies, AZTech Technologies, and Tellon Trading, Inc., Arecy, CG Max Design Corporation, XCG Design Corp, ApexIT in any manner or capacity, it is important to consult with an experienced attorney to immediately advise you and to identify potential problems early in your case and develop a strong case strategy before applying for any immigration benefits. Related Success Stories on Integra: Successfully Assisted a Client Who Was Previously Associated with Integra Technologies Inc. to Obtain H-1B Visa from US Consulate in India ( November 2023) Successfully Assisted a Client Who Was Previously Associated with Andwill to Obtain H-1B Visa from US Consulate in India Successfully Obtained H4 Status for Client That Was Previously Associated with Integra Technologies LLC after TWO previous denials (November 2022) Successfully Overcome H-1B RFE for Client That Was Previously Associated with Integra Technologies LLC (April 2023) Successfully Overcome H-1B Extension NOID for Client That Was Previously Associated with Integra Technologies LLC (June 2023) Successfully Obtained H4 Status for Client That Was Previously Associated with Integra Technologies LLC after THREE previous H-1B denials (August 2023) Federal Lawsuit Successfully Forced USCIS to Reverse a Wrongful Denial of an H-1B petition for Client That Was Previously Associated with Integra Technologies LLC (Dec 2022)

In a September 2022 decision, San Francisco Immigration Court granted our client’s Motion to Reopen and Terminate Removal Proceeding because our client is no longer removable due to the vacate and reduction of our client's criminal convictions. Department of Homeland Security filed a lengthy 20 pages opposition to our motion. However, the immigration judge ruled on our favor. Our client is a permanent resident. Unfortunately, he had a difficult youth. As a young adult, he made a series of mistakes that led to two criminal convictions. The first was a burglary conviction when he was 18 (Cal. Pen. Code § 460). This led to a deportation order against him in immigration court. In 2006, when he was involved in a tragedy. He was unfortunately at the scene when an acquaintance of his hurt someone, resulting in that person losing his life. Our client did not participate in this act of violence or even in the planning of it, he just happened to be in the same car. On the advice of his public defender at the time, he accepted a plea deal and pled no contest to conspiracy and accessory after the fact along with sentence enhancements (Cal. Pen. Code §§ 32, 182(a)(1), 667(b)-(i)/1170.12). At the time, no one advised our client of the immigration consequences of pleading no contest to those charges. Had he known that the plea could endanger his immigration status and potentially bar him from becoming a U.S. citizen, he never would have entered the plea. Attorney Nguyen D. Luu took on representation and determined that the best approach to regain our client's permanent residency and perhaps naturalization is by Post Conviction Relief under California state law. Our office approached the Santa Clara District Attorney Office and filed a motion in the criminal court pursuant to Pen. Code, §§ 1473.7 to vacate the client’s convictions due to substantial and procedural defect of client’s criminal proceedings. Fortunately, we were able to come to an agreement with the District Attorney office and entered into a Stipulation and Order where the Santa Clara County Superior Court issued an order, legally invalidated our client's conspiracy conviction and the enhancements, because the failure to warn our client of the immigration consequences of his criminal plea is procedural defect in the criminal proceeding, violated his constitutional right, and prejudiced his ability to “meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the . . . adverse immigration consequences” of the conviction. Cal. Pen. Code § 1473.7. Thus, his conspiracy and enhancement convictions were vacated, and he pled guilty instead to a second count of accessory after the fact (Cal. Pen. Code § 32). Following the court’s order, his 2006 conviction was converted to two counts of misdemeanor accessory after the fact (Cal. Pen. Code § 32) with a combined total sentence of 364 days. The Santa Clara Superior Court also found that our client had successfully completed his probation and paid all fines and fees; accordingly, the sentence was deemed served and his probation was terminated. Following the Santa Clara Superior Court’s order, our office successfully moved the Immigration Court to terminate removal proceedings against him despite the government's fierce objection. His successful motion to reopen and terminate removal proceedings was based on two grounds: (1) legal changes rendered his 2003 burglary conviction a non-deportable offense; and (2) following the Santa Clara Superior Court’s orders, the 2006 convictions are not deportable offenses either. Under these circumstances, “material change[s]” in the law or fact underlying the removability grounds warranted termination of the removal proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(v). Because our client's remaining conviction are neither inadmissible or deportable, in terminating removal, the Immigration Court removed the final barrier to our client's naturalization. The firm is extremely please of the result we were able to achieve for our client. Our client's naturalization application is now pending.

Finding Your Way Out of the Walter Jay M.D. Institute Scam

In February 2024, our office successfully sued USCIS in federal court, forcing USCIS to completely reverse course and approve our client's I-485 Application to Adjust Status. Our client is the principal beneficiary of an approved employment-based petition. At the I-485 Adjustment of Status interview, our client was found inadmissible because he was previously a member of the Chinese Communist Party. USCIS issued a Request for Evidence requesting an I-601 Waiver to waive their inadmissibility. The client reached out to our office for assistance. Attorney Nguyen D. Luu reviewed our client’s case file and the factual circumstances surrounding their membership in the Communist Party. Attorney Nguyen Luu determined that our client is qualified for the exceptions enumerated in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Our office prepared a substantive memorandum of law and extensive supporting documents to establish that our client is qualified for the exceptions, and therefore should not have been found inadmissible. However, even if they were found to be inadmissible - a point we did not concede - our client is still eligible for a green card because they would be eligible for the I-601 Waiver. We submitted a response to USCIS, and out of an abundance of caution, we also filed an I-601 Waiver application. Unfortunately, USCIS denied both the I-601 Waiver and the I-485 application. USCIS' denial was clearly erroneous and arbitrary because it was based on incorrect legal standards. Specifically, USCIS claimed that our client did not demonstrate sufficient extreme hardship to their LPR spouse for the I-601 Waiver. Furthermore, USCIS improperly gave less weight to a properly issued confirmation of Party membership termination. The evidence presented sufficiently supported a finding that USCIS’s misapplication of the law was the sole basis of the Denial. This was a material error of law. The Denial completely ignored basic legal concepts regarding the level of hardship required for an I-601 Waiver application. It is well-settled law that extreme hardship is not required in this context. By making such an obvious contradiction of the black letter law in the Denial, USCIS violated its duty under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to engage in “reasoned decision-making.” ( Michigan v. EPA , 576 U.S. 743, 750 (2015); 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq.) Under the APA, USCIS must refrain from making decisions that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), emphasis added.) Furthermore, by not giving full weight to the evidence on the record, USCIS’s Decision on its face was “patently unresponsive” to the administrative record. Due to the imminent harm to our clients, our firm took an aggressive approach to protect their rights. We filed a lawsuit against USCIS in federal court, the Southern District of New York. Notably, this was the same court that previously found it would not have jurisdiction to hear challenges of the I-485 applications. Regardless, as one district judge's decision was not binding, we presented compelling arguments in favor of the court's jurisdiction in our lawsuit. The firm is very pleased to learn that as a result of our action, USCIS completely reversed course, re-opened, and approved our client's I-485 application. As USCIS conceded that our client was not inadmissible as they qualified for the exceptions, USCIS did not even reopen the I-601 Waiver. As we emerge completely victorious in this litigation, we are reminded that when the government fails to apply the correct law or follow its own regulations, it will be held accountable in the court of law. Our firm will not hesitate to take aggressive action in federal courts to hold the government to the highest standard. See our successes: Obtained Immigrant Visa for Past Member of Communist Party Without Filing I-601 Waiver (July 2020) I-601 Waiver of Communist Party Member Inadmissibility Approved within 7 weeks (March 2020) USCIS Request for an I-601 Waiver of Communist Party Member Inadmissibility Withdrawn Without Filing I-290B form- Client Received Green Card (June 2019) Success Story: I-601 Waiver of China Communist Party Member Inadmissibility Approved (Oct 2020) Obtained Green Card for Past Member of Communist Party Without Filing an I-601 Waiver Application (March 2021) Can I-601 Waiver be Granted on the Basis of "Public Interest" Alone? Yes, it could. (April 2021) Success Story: I-601 Waiver of China Communist Party Member Inadmissibility Approved within 3 weeks (November 2021) Success Story: I-601 Waiver of China Communist Party Member Inadmissibility Approved within 3 days (May 2022) Policy Alert: USCIS Issues Policy Guidance Regarding Inadmissibility Based on Membership in a Totalitarian Party (October 2nd, 2020)

In a January 2024 decision, the USCIS New York Field Office approved our client’s I-485 green card application approximately one week after the I-485 interview, despite a previous denial. Our client is the beneficiary/spouse of an approved family-based petition. During the previous I-485 Adjustment of Status proceeding in 2023, our client was found inadmissible because they were a former member of the Chinese Communist Party. USCIS denied our client's I-485 application. The former attorney prepared the I-290B Notice of Appeal or Motion with USCIS, but it was also denied. As our client was at risk of deportation, they contacted our office seeking assistance with the denial. Attorney Nguyen D. Luu reviewed the client’s case file and the factual circumstances when they joined the Communist Party. Attorney Nguyen Luu determined that our client is qualified for the exceptions enumerated in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Furthermore, our client is also qualified for the I-601 Waiver. Our office prepared a substantive memorandum of law and extensive supporting documents to establish that our client is qualified for the exceptions; hence, they should not have been found inadmissible. As a precaution, we also submitted an I-601 Waiver application with substantial evidence and legal arguments. Attorney Nguyen D. Luu also conducted mock interview with our client to prepare them for the I-485 interview. Just one week after our client's interview at USCIS for their I-485 application filed by our office, they received an online notice that their I-485 application was approved and the green card is being produced. Our client could remain united with their family and is waiting the green card in the mail. See our successes: Obtained Immigrant Visa for Past Member of Communist Party Without Filing I-601 Waiver (July 2020) I-601 Waiver of Communist Party Member Inadmissibility Approved within 7 weeks (March 2020) USCIS Request for an I-601 Waiver of Communist Party Member Inadmissibility Withdrawn Without Filing I-290B form- Client Received Green Card (June 2019) Success Story: I-601 Waiver of China Communist Party Member Inadmissibility Approved (Oct 2020) Obtained Green Card for Past Member of Communist Party Without Filing an I-601 Waiver Application (March 2021) Can I-601 Waiver be Granted on the Basis of "Public Interest" Alone? Yes, it could. (April 2021) Success Story: I-601 Waiver of China Communist Party Member Inadmissibility Approved within 3 weeks (November 2021) Success Story: I-601 Waiver of China Communist Party Member Inadmissibility Approved within 3 days (May 2022) Policy Alert: USCIS Issues Policy Guidance Regarding Inadmissibility Based on Membership in a Totalitarian Party (October 2nd, 2020)

In November 2023, our office assisted a client in obtaining their H-1B visa at the U.S. Consulate in India. As an F-1 visa international student, our client participated in the OPT program and was hired by Integra. Unbeknownst to the client, Integra Technologies Inc., Andwill, and Wireclass appeared to be possible shell companies. These companies used elaborate means to entice mostly Indian students to pay for training in exchange for obtaining temporary employment to fulfill the requirements of F-1 OPT. They allegedly promised to provide training services, networking opportunities, and internships perceived to be legitimate employment opportunities. Many F-1 students relied on their promises and received job offers from them. After NBC Bay Area's investigation exposed Integra, Andwill, and Wireclass's questionable nature, USCIS relentlessly pursued former students who were previously associated with Integra, Integra, Wireclass, and AZTech. USCIS issued Requests for Evidence, Notices of Intent to Deny ("NOID"), and conducted interviews with USCIS Fraud Detection Officers, alleging misrepresentation and fraud. Many of the students and former students also had their F-1 and H-1B visas revoked. Previously, in 2022, our client’s H-1B and Change of Status petition was denied due to their past association with Integra. Our office assisted our client with filing a lawsuit in federal district court challenging the wrongful denial. Within 2 weeks after we filed our lawsuit, USCIS reversed course and approved the H-1B petition and Change of Status application. In 2023, our client returned to India to visit family and submitted their H-1B visa application at U.S. Consulate. Although initially, our client was eligible for interview waiver, they were subsequently scheduled for an interview. Knowing that many other visa applicants have been denied of visas stemming from their association with these OPT employers, our office proactively prepared the client for the interview by reviewing the case file and conducting mock interviews with our client. As expected, our client was questioned on their past association with Integra. Since our client was well-prepared, after a few days, they were issued a visa. The firm is very pleased with the results we have achieved for our client. If you were previously associated with FINDREAM, SINOCONTECH, Integra Technologies, AZTech Technologies, Tellon Trading, Inc., Arecy, CG Max Design Corporation, or XCG Design Corp in any manner or capacity, it is important to consult with an experienced attorney immediately to advise you and to identify potential problems early in your case and develop a strong case strategy before applying for any immigration benefits. Related Stories: Successfully Assisted a Client Who Was Previously Associated with Andwill to Obtain H-1B Visa from US Consulate in India Successfully Obtained H4 Status for Client That Was Previously Associated with Integra Technologies LLC after TWO previous denials (November 2022) Successfully Overcome H-1B RFE for Client That Was Previously Associated with Integra Technologies LLC (April 2023) Successfully Overcome H-1B Extension NOID for Client That Was Previously Associated with Integra Technologies LLC (June 2023) Successfully Obtained H4 Status for Client That Was Previously Associated with Integra Technologies LLC after THREE previous H-1B denials (August 2023) Finding Your Way Out of FINDREAM and SINOCONTECH FRAUD Allegations

In October 2023, our office successfully obtained green cards for a client who was previously associated with FINDREAM, LLC (“FINDREAM”), but failed to remember their brief association during two I-485 interviews. As an F-1 visa international student, our client participated in the OPT program and was hired by FINDREAM. Unbeknownst to them, FINDREAM founder Weiyun “Kelly” Huang and the corporations she founded were convicted of conspiracy to commit visa fraud in 2020. Huang used elaborate means to entice students to pay for her services in exchange for obtaining temporary employment to fulfill the requirements of F1 OPT. FINDREAM falsely promised to provide training services, networking opportunities, and internships perceived to be legitimate employment opportunities. Many F-1 students fell victim to the fraud perpetrated by Huang and her accomplices. After the convictions of the perpetrators, USCIS relentlessly pursued the student victims of fraud as “knowing co-conspirators.” USCIS issued Requests for Evidence ("RFE"), Notices of Intent to Deny ("NOID"), and conducted interviews by USCIS Fraud Detection Officers, alleging misrepresentation and fraud if the student had previously held work authorization by association with the above companies. Our client had their initial USCIS interview in June 2022, during which they faced repeated questions about their connection to Findream, a company they could not recall due to a brief association more than 8 years ago. Our client felt that the USCIS officer appeared to pressure them to admit a connection with Findream and they were conspiring with Findream to engage in immigration fraud. Subsequently, our client was invited for a second interview at the USCIS office. During the second interview, our client was shown SEVIS records of Findream employment, which they still could not recollect their association. Our client was obliged to sign a statement, but the officer never explained what the statement was for. After the interview, our client sought the record and found an email confirming their Findream employment. They believe their association lasted no more than a few days in 2014, and they never even started their employment with Findream. Fearing that their misstatement to USCIS might cause a denial of their I-485 application, the client reached out to our office for help. Concerned that USCIS might accuse our client of making false statements and finding them inadmissible when our client denied their past association with Findream during the I-485 interview, Attorney Nguyen D. Luu and our legal team took on representation. Our office assisted our client in making a timely and voluntary retraction of any inadvertent misstatements made during their adjustment of status interviews. Our office promptly prepared a supplemental client’s statement and attorney legal memo to request that USCIS remove from consideration any misstatements as our client genuinely could not recall that they had an association with Findream more than 8 years ago. While the process took significant time due to its complex nature, our patience paid off. Months later, the USCIS Officer called our office and informed the attorney that she had reviewed our firm’s submission and will be approving the I-485 application. The firm is very pleased to learn that we were able to persuade USCIS that our client did not commit misrepresentation during the I-485 interview, and their brief association with Findream was not part of the visa fraud conspiracy. If you were previously associated with FINDREAM, SINOCONTECH, Integra Technologies, AZTech Technologies, and Tellon Trading, Inc., Arecy, CG Max Design Corporation, XCG Design Corp in any manner or capacity, it is important to consult with an experienced attorney to immediately advise you and to identify potential problems early in your case and develop a strong case strategy before applying for any immigration benefits. Related Stories: Finding Your Way Out of FINDREAM and SINOCONTECH FRAUD Allegations Successfully Obtained H1B Status for Client That Was Previously Associated with FINDREAM Successfully Overcame NOID and Obtained H4 Status for Client That Was Previously Associated with FINDREAM Successfully Obtained H-1B Visa for Client That Was Previously Associated with DEALFAR ( Jan 2022) Success Story: Overcame NOID and Obtained H4 Status Extension for Client That Was Previously Associated with FINDREAM (January 2022) Successfully Obtained O-1 Visa for Client That Was Previously Associated with ARECY LLC (MAY 2022) Successfully Responded to RFE and Obtained H-1B Extension for Client That Was Previously Associated with Masswell and CG Max Design ( September 2022) Successfully Obtained THREE I-485 Approvals for Clients That Were Previously Associated with FINDREAM Federal Lawsuit Successfully Forced USCIS to Reverse a Wrongful Denial of an H-1B petition for Client That Was Previously Associated with Integra Technologies LLC (Dec 2022) Successfully Obtained I-485 Approval for Client That Was Previously Associated with CloudParticle (March 2023)

Legal matters can be stressful, and hiring a lawyer is often a necessary step to navigate through the complexities of the legal system. While there are countless resources available on how to hire a lawyer, it's equally important to understand how to maintain a positive and respectful client-lawyer relationship. In this blog post, we'll discuss the importance of respecting your lawyer and accepting the fees quoted. 1. Does your lawyer have any expertise? Your lawyer is a legal professional with years of education and experience. When you hire them, you're essentially tapping into their knowledge and skills to help you with your legal matters. Respect their expertise by listening to their advice, even if it differs from your initial expectations. A good lawyer will always have your best interests in mind. 2. Is there effective communication? Effective communication is key to any successful relationship, including the one you have with your lawyer. Be open and honest about your legal concerns, goals, and expectations. The more information you provide, the better your lawyer can understand and address your needs. 3. Do you understand the fee structure? Before you begin working with your lawyer, make sure you have a clear understanding of their fee structure and billing practices. Don't hesitate to ask questions to clarify any doubts. Once you've agreed upon the fees, respect the agreement and be prepared to pay accordingly. 4. Is there a need to micromanage? While it's natural to be concerned about your legal case, avoid the urge to micromanage the process. Lawyers have multiple clients and responsibilities, and they need time to work on your case effectively. Trust that they are diligently working on your behalf. 5. Are responses timely? Lawyers often work with deadlines and rely on you for information and documents. Be prompt in responding to their requests. Delays on your part can not only hinder your case's progress but also lead to increased fees due to the additional time required. 6. Do you understand expectations? Legal matters can be complex and time-consuming. Be realistic about the timeline and expectations for your case. Understand that your lawyer may not always be able to drop everything to address your concerns immediately. 7. Is there constructive feedback? If you have concerns or questions about your case, address them in a constructive and respectful manner. Lawyers appreciate clients who are engaged and willing to discuss their legal matters. Constructive feedback can help improve the working relationship and the quality of service. 8. Are you following the legal advice given? While the final decisions about your case are ultimately yours to make, give serious consideration to the advice and recommendations of your lawyer. Ignoring their counsel can have consequences for your legal situation. Conclusion Building a positive client-lawyer relationship is essential for a successful legal outcome. By respecting your lawyer's expertise, following these guidelines, and accepting the agreed-upon fees, you can ensure a smoother and more productive legal experience. Remember, a collaborative approach between you and your lawyer can lead to a more favorable resolution of your legal matters. If you ever have concerns or questions about the fees or the conduct of your lawyer, don't hesitate to address them professionally and constructively. A strong and respectful client-lawyer relationship is built on open communication and trust.