My question relates to legal practice in the state of: EVERYWHERE.

I don't want to say all laywers do this...but every lawyer I have ever worked with has, and it blows my mind ever GD time. Then the other day I was watching JUDGE JUDY and she asked this stupid question.

Client (or potential client) to lawyer: Client explains to lawyer what happened and how they were effected negatively. Or maybe they leave out how they were effected negatively. This is what I do. I simply provide the facts regarding who did what.

Lawyer (or potential lawyer who doesn't recognize this is an opportunity to demonstrate they are competent) to client: What did they do wrong? OR What behavior is actionable? OR What law was broken?

This is when my brain scrambles. I think "When you take your car in for service...does the mechanic look at you and say 'What specific component do you want me to fix?' OR What tools should I use? OR What are the specifications for that component OR What other areas of your car do you think have been effected? Because if I was asked those things, I would know this person hasn't a clue. So why is this lawyer asking me...they should know what laws were broken, how they can be remedied and then provide me with options. Alas, I'm being asked questions in an area where I don't know what I don't know. I should be able to provide a scenario then a lawyer tells me what the potential solutions are."