House manufacturer threatens to stop work

why doesn't the OP comment anymore?

I guess: Unmet expectations regarding the degree of solidarity from the community.

Yes, to a lawyer. Just not – as several of your respondents have meanwhile explained – not to a quarrelsome lawyer, and not with the mandate to generate counterpressure. Basically, lawyers do learn how to do it properly. You just must not go to one of those who put that directly aside after their training.

Exactly: a good lawyer can also restrain a client and "make them understand out of court" that they may well be mistaken in their assertion of rights. And then smooth things over for them before it gets really expensive.

I now have the second ongoing court case regarding house purchase and house construction, and I can say from my experience that no lawyer has so far restrained his client. Why should they? They get their money anyway.

Otherwise, I cannot explain why in case 1 the lawyer did not explain to his client (the opposing party) that what she is doing could become really expensive (in the end 100K), or why the lawyer of party 2 in the next case did not explain to his client that it would be better to waive suing for the outstanding invoice because that will now cost him a lot of money instead of getting money.

It was also completely ignored that it always takes two to tango. What use is it to me if one party is experienced in non-violent communication but the other party just lashes out, is convinced they know everything because they have already built 100 houses and you haven’t?

A lawyer always gets really expensive. Even the €190 initial consultation hurts. And with every euro spent on lawyers, procedures, and everything around it, it becomes harder to pull the emergency brake when you realize you're on the wrong track.

Without any information about what happened here, advising to go straight to a lawyer also seems strange to me. Because as soon as a lawyer is involved, an even longer construction stop threatens, possibly until the procedure is over. We do not even know if this is about serious construction defects with high follow-up costs, or about "minor issues," like a wrongly installed drywall.

and from my experience I can say that no lawyer has ever held back his client. Why should he? He still gets his money anyway?

A usual legal approach is to set a maximum claim as a basis for negotiation. This also determines the amount in dispute, which is relevant for the fee. In a settlement, the lawyer receives an increased fee. Viewed from this perspective, the lawyer has no interest in a de-escalating approach. Nevertheless, there are certainly pragmatic lawyers who act not only in their own interest but above all in the client's interest.

It was also completely ignored that it always takes two. What good is it to me if one party is skilled in nonviolent communication, but the other party just lashes out

Of course, there are opponents where you cannot avoid playing hardball. That is completely unclear here. In strategic negotiations, "lashing out" is rarely the recommended first step. I am glad to know very good lawyers. We advise each other free of charge. It is always good to know your legal position and risks. Anyone who goes to a lawyer to get exactly such an assessment pays for advice without anything being broken. Those who can sleep better afterward and have an idea for an approach have invested their money well. Going to a lawyer often sounds like "let them enforce it for you." That is a different mandate, with which I recommend being sparing.

Exactly. As a layperson, I am not familiar with the nuances of deadlines, contractual obligations, etc., since the details differ from buying a washing machine. A lawyer can advise me accordingly so that there are no delays caused by me setting deadlines incorrectly as a layperson or failing to fulfill an obligation on my part. Of course, I also have to formulate this as a commission to the lawyer. Our lawyer usually lets us draft and send the first letters ourselves, so as not to immediately escalate with official letterhead, when it is only a matter of securely communicating claims to the contractual partner.

that no lawyer has so far put a brake on his client

Such lawyers do exist, and I wouldn’t have wanted any other anyway. From experience, barking lawyers don’t get further in the end than those who approach the matter moderately and prudently. One should also ask such a lawyer to critically review their own perspective on things. Sometimes you simply can’t see the other side. But that does not at all exclude that one’s own (moderately acting) lawyer will nevertheless act firmly if necessary.