He's not right. The lawyer likely didn't have a legal leg to stand on, but may have caused a paradigm shift in this kid's life. Why do you assume there weren't

He's not right. The lawyer likely didn't have a legal leg to stand on, but may have caused a paradigm shift in this kid's life. Why do you assume there weren't knock-on effects/consequences to his actions? Or that they were positive (set him on the right track) vs deleterious?