I clicked three of those links and none of them involved the attorney disobeying a client's order "for their own good" and setting their own alternative litigat

I clicked three of those links and none of them involved the attorney disobeying a client's order "for their own good" and setting their own alternative litigation strategy. They appear to involve things like not showing up to court and stealing money. You did not actually link to a case like I invited at any rate. Perhaps you simply typed "malpractice cases" in a search , and thought any case would do. If you want to link to an actual case in that site you feel is relevant feel free to do so. If you are an American attorney, (complaining about attorney would likely invite replies from attorneys) you've almost certainly read cases in law school about attorneys not obeying clients for their own good and being deemed to meet ethical standards. To be clear, I am referring to the attorney deciding what to write in court documents and what to argue before the judge, not things like failure to appear in court. There's no point in arguing with me if you know I am correct. If you genuinely feel I am wrong I invited you to link to a particular article showing otherwise. Your other statements are just using fancy prose to call a lie something other than a lie. The attorney isn't slut shaming, they are "creating reasonable doubt". The attorney is not misleading the jury, they are "creating an alternative picture"." Essentially you have a dictionary of professional euphamisms for propoganda constructed to decieve the jury about what occured during the crime. I do appreciate the idea that the high powered defense attorney serving the ultra wealthy are not liars or grifter decieving jurys as to the guily of their clients but "creators of reasonable doubt". That's a very nice play on language and the legal standards developed over the last few hundred years.