A plaintiff (his lawyer actually), files a complaint citing grounds A, B, and C. In the first court hearing, the Judge throws out grounds B and C as not being under his jurisdiction. He also offers an opinion that the plaintiff might have a cause of action under ground D, that had not been previously mentioned.
So the plaintiff goes back to the lawyer and says, "Let's re-file the complaint with grounds A and D, and "pull" grounds B and C. The lawyer replies, "No, I don't think the complaint will go anywhere under ground D, and I think we can appeal on ground C.
This client is unhappy that the lawyer gives so little weight to the judge's findings. Does it constitute a summary judgment, and does the plaintiff have a right to be unhappy? How can s/he decide whether or not to follow the lawyer's advice?