Here's the problem: "The attorney assured us that it's O.K." to remain in the country after visa lapsed while awaiting adjustment of status.

No, it's not "O.K."

There are tons of incompetent/corrupt attorneys immigration and otherwise who will basically tell a client what they think the client wants to hear, in order to avoid losing a client, and the fees that client generates.

These attorneys are never named. The attorney in all these articles is the Pomerleau dude who is obviously connected with someone at the NY Times and is pursuing an agenda with these cases. Pomerleau is not the unnamed "attorney who said it was O.K." Pomerleau never says it's "OK", just that it's unfair for them to be deported. He's a clever guy.

If your immigration lawyer tells you something more accurate and nuanced such as "Well technically it's a violation of immigration law to remain in the country after your visa has expired. If you overstay technically you could be deported and banned from coming back, if the letter of the law is followed strictly. Recent administrations have not been enforcing the immigration laws strictly as you should already be aware of. I can't guarantee you won't be deported before your adjustment of status occurs, as there is a huge backlog. I can't guarantee you will ever be granted an adjustment of status. Now that Trump has been re-elected he is cracking down hard on visa overstays so you better leave for now."

These people are all just liars playing for sympathy. The NY Times took the most sympathetic cases they could find and deliberately failed to supply all relevant facts. I'll bet if the attorneys who told them it was OK to stay were actually interviewed, they probably did NOT tell them it was O.K. to stay, they were told they were taking a risk and were rolling the dice.

These effin' people are liars.