There is a fine line between giving the criminal defense client what he or she wants and what is best for the client. Those two things don't always mix well. What makes this situation even more difficult is when an associate attorney attorney and a senior attorney have a different approach to the same issue and the client knows about both opinions. Consider the following: an immigration attorney will tell a client that under no circumstance can a client plead guilty to a crime of moral turpitude, but the criminal defense attorney is telling the same client that he or she must plead guilty to the crime, even if it is a crime of moral turpitude, simply because the weight of the evidence is greater than the offer made in connection with case (the offer to plead guilty for a lesser sentence or lesser jail or prison time, etc.). Sometimes, a client will have more knowledge of the subject matter than the attorney, such as in a particular science that is applied to the case (DNA, fingerprint analysis, serology, etc.). This make the case especially difficult. It is important that the client sees the staff as one unit with various opinions, as opposed to separate units. The most common cases where the client and the lawyer disagree on how to proceed in a criminal case, include: DUI with Injury, Welfare Fraud, Perjury, Domestic Battery, Unathorized Use of Vehicle, and Criminal Threats. These types of cases include the defendant feeling victimized along with the victim and makes settlement of these cases difficult. The way to proceed is to educate the client from beginning to end on the science used in the case and the legal procedure. This is true even if it takes a lot longer in these types of cases. Also, staff and attorneys (associate attorneys, etc.) all need to be on the same page when speaking to the client. This means that the staff must communicate on the direction of the client's case and put the client's needs in light of, not in place of, the attorneys ability to serve the client in the best way.