Lawyer responsibility and Shiavo case

I've been thinking a lot about the role of the Shiavo's lawyer, and the responsibility lawyers have to their clients. Before I get too far in, though, since I'm discussing a lawyer let me get the legal disclaimer out of the way:

I am not privy to any of the discussions between the Schindler's and their lawyer. What is being discussed here are hypothetical questions I think the case raises. The discussion is not meant to imply that the lawyer in the case has not done or has failed to do anything he should have, or in any other way has acted improperly.

I'm curious, though, when it becomes the Lawyer's responsibility to advise the Shindler's that further legal options are not in their best interest. Certainly, the final choice is up to the Schindler's and if they state they want to keep going, regardless, then that's what the lawyer needs to do. A lawyer is your advocate.

On the other hand, they are also supposed to be your advisor. They are supposed to advise you what's best, which isn't always what you want. I feel bad each time I hear that they've re-filed an appeal, because I'm 90% certain that the appeal will fail, and I know they the pin all their hopes, only to see them dashed again and again.

Yes, certainly, the involvement of congress all but necessitated refilings on the federal level and, I think, appeal that decision. After that, though, with no other real changes of law, they went back to the state, and again to the federal level, and again for the Supreme Court, all of which have rejected them.

At this point I think that if I were there lawyer I would advise them that they were almost certainly just wasting their time and, most importantly, getting their hopes up for nothing. I've lost count, but courts on all levels - federal, state, and supreme have rejected arguments to have them intervene at least twice, sometimes in just the last few weeks.