I've found that many lawyers have limited knowledge on the deep details or just can't spend the time to explore those defenses or novel defenses. They pretty much operate on a pattern of their past cases. For example, a vaccine injury lawyer doesn't want to look into the statistics of how common a rare injury when preceeded by a vaccine vs not. In a civil court where decisions are supposed to be based on "more likely than not" standard, showing the likelihood can make a huge impact. Or in another case the lawyer I talked to missed a couple of issues with police/prosecutor conduct which violated the rules of procedure, and missed a precedential ruling that would have been applicable to the case.
Client expectations can also be high regarding fairness in court (assuming litigation is potentially involved). Going back to the "more likely than not" standard, protection from abuses and red flag laws are abused. This is trivial to prove out statistically as the number of orders which are later reversed or not extended are grater than 51%, and that the overwhelming majority of the subjects they are served against have no history of abuse, evidence of abuse, nor did they abuse the person during or after the order (it's just a piece of paper afterall). Another example is when our rights were violated the lawyer we talked to said it was a violation but there's not a good case because the judges only care if there was significant financial or physical injury involved.
So doing things to manage client expectations could be good.
I haven't had many experiences with lawyers, thank God. But the ones I had have been mediocre. The whole system and experience has been a major let down from the stuff you're taught in school/society about justice, integrity, etc.