There is a built-in, inevitable conflict of interest between the lawyer and his or her client. It's not only that the lawyer wants to be paid and the client is likely reluctant to pay very much. It's far more subtle and fundamental. It's actually very much like what Freud called 'transference,' or whatever German word he used.
Most clients are naive--in the sense that physicians speak of
'opiate-naive'--that is, not experienced in dealing with...the item in question. Clients who have not dealt much with lawyers come to them nearly always stricken by something which they feel has been imposed upon them: a divorce (which lots of men in the Heartland don't really see coming), a lawsuit for collecting money, a criminal charge based on something they did or did not do.
But when they meet the lawyer, they are terribly vulnerable. They know they are entering a world which uses a different form of the English (or other) language they customarily use; they believe that words are magical. If you use the wrong one, you can be cast down to Hell. Or jail. If you use the right ones, you may emerge victorious, regardless of the merits.
And you are entering a world with its own rules of etiquette, its forms of address ('Milord,' 'Your Honour,' 'ladies and gentlemen of the jury'. And you risk always looking foolish, ignorant, naive. (Lawyers often feel this even after thirty years of experience.)
So the naive client meets the lawyer, and is full of need. They need someone who understands the language, the rules, the way somehow to get through the nightmare. And here is the lawyer, who, if he or she has the slightest sense of salesmanship, or even just compassion, seeks to fill the need. (And the lawyer has his or her own needs to be felt as nurturing, competent, expert.)
So the client must believe that the lawyer is wise and good, and can save him.
This is when the lawyer says, 'my retainer will be five-thousand dollars.'
