“A claim is said to be objective if its truth or falsity can be settled as a matter of fact independent of anybody’s attitudes, feelings or evaluations; it is subjective if it cannot. For example, the claim that Van Gogh died in France is epistemically objective. But the claim that Van Gogh was a better painter than Gaugin is, as they say, a matter of subjective opinion. It is epistemically subjective.”
John Searle wrote this in a book review in the NY Rev. of Books, June 9, 2011, at 50. The distinction applies to judgments of value delivered by law firms – note the telling word “judgments.” Too many consequences and interpretations and subjective views permeate any legal services for a value to be assigned to those services “as a matter of fact independent of anybody’s attitude.” The value of all legal services remains subjective and beyond conclusive (epistemically objective) proof.