Consulting a lawyer is to explain to the lawyer "who and who happened when and where" and what problems to solve. The "who" here is the subject to determine the legal relationship, and the "time" is to determine the limitation of action, whether it is a breach of contract, etc. , the "location" is to determine the jurisdiction of the court, whether the breach of contract, etc. And the specific "what" is to determine the legal relationship between the parties.
Moreover, lawyers may have to ask many factual questions when key issues are involved in the consultation process. I'm afraid it's hard to say clearly if it's not the party concerned. The consequence of consulting on behalf of others is likely to be a second consultation, which will increase the cost of both the client and the lawyer. Moreover, non-parties have to report twice, and the ability and level of reporting vary from person to person, and the consulting effect may be difficult to guarantee, so they do their own things and the company's affairs are attended by managers.
Second, truthfully state? Don't hide it
As mentioned above, the parties need to explain the relevant facts to the lawyer and provide more details and key facts according to the guidance of the lawyer. Only in this way can lawyers make a comprehensive and accurate judgment, and any information transmission error may lead to significant differences in the results. For example, in the case of inheritance, the death order of the father and grandparents of the parties directly leads to the change of the scope of legal heirs.
If this information is intentionally concealed or wrongly transmitted, it is highly likely to be overturned by objective evidence in subsequent lawsuits or other procedures, which is not only not conducive to protecting one's rights and interests, but also puts oneself in an extremely passive position. Therefore, only by explaining the relevant facts, needs and puzzles to lawyers can we get more help.