The lovely thing about English is all the nuance words we use can have :-). > Well back then the attorneys always had clients who were expected to engage them

The lovely thing about English is all the nuance words we use can have :-). > Well back then the attorneys always had clients who were expected to engage them purely based on reputation and word-of-mouth ... This is a crucial observation IMHO. > In business "clients" were the ones that came to you, "customers" were the ones that needed a little sales pitch. And this is where we diverge in our use of "clients" and "customers" in a business context. My use of "customers" is not in a retail type of context, where convincing is often needed, but is instead in a service one. Perhaps the author's phrasing of: > A client implies that the consultant is superior, while customer suggests that the consultant is beholden. Is a bit too strong. What if, instead, the two were categorized as; - A client implies that the consultant (doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc.) is sought out by someone who will do what the consultant tells them to do due to reputation and/or word-of-mouth. - A customer suggests that the consultant (doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc.) is sought out by someone who needs their skills and expects the consultant to work with them to achieve their goals. To me, the former cedes control to the consultant. This is not always a bad thing, BTW, as for example many people will recommend; "listen to your lawyer, they know the law and courts better than you." The latter conveys to me more of a collaborative interaction, where the consultant and customer are each reminded that what the consultant offers are the skills the customer requires to reach their goals. And, of course, what the customer offers is the ability to express to the consultant, with both vision and remuneration, what they seek.