However shallow they may be, here are my thoughts.
If we begin with K's dismissal of the lawyer, if K would have kept the lawyer I don't believe his judgment would have come so swiftly. He would break and live a life on his knees much like Block. With the lawyers humiliation of Block K sees clearly what is in store for him if he keeps the lawyer. K still has his self respect. With the dismissal of the lawyer K has the chance to choose freedom but he doesn't. During his encounter with the priest it is written "it was not impossible that K. could obtain decisive and acceptable counsel from him which might, for instance, point the way, not toward some some influential manipulation of the case, but a circumvention of the case, a breaking away from it altogether, a mode of living completely outside the jurisdiction of the Court." K does not understand that this possibility exists in him, he has the power to disregard this case and live outside the jurisdiction of the law. After the priest tells his fable K remarks that the man was deceived and indeed K feels he was deceived by the idea that the case was to be fought and won. The priest continues to explain how the man was not deceived and that the doorkeeper even went beyond his duty. K. was right in his early assumption that he should have completely ignored the case, that is the only way he succeeds but it is K's arrogance that is his ultimate downfall. He believes he can beat this charge against him but it is not something to be beat. It is not something to be understood and K is always trying to understand it and he becomes weaker and weaker more and more confused with brief feelings of righteousness in between. I heard someone say that it is a metaphor on life, it sucks then you die alone, confused with out anymore understanding of why. It is the foundation of some of the greatest thinkers that the unquestioning acceptance of this is the key to happiness and enlightenment. K seems to me a Christ-like figure lost and confused unable to cope in a modern world.