Thanks for the file! Here's a few things:

1. A screen capture of the LR import, with the shadow clipping highlighted in blue. The only 'too dark' areas are in the background bushes, not the undersides of the street shelter in the foreground. There's nothing "too dark" in the relevant sections of the image to be recovered via digital editing.

2. Next is a processed JPEG. Even from the JPEG conversions, there are plenty of details in the shadows to lighten these areas, if desired. I started with LR6's <Auto> tone, then adjusted to my preferred edit, including some straightening and cropping for the wide-angle. My old software doesn't have a lens profile to address the vignette and distortion. You might want to lift the shadows even more. That's for you to decide, best, on the original RAW.

3. Finally, I exported the same edits as a DNG. You can download and import this file back into your LR catalog and sync the edits from the DNG to a VC of the original RAW to get a sense of what and where I made changes. You can selectively sync, such as just the "basic" settings.

4. You asked if there was something generic to do to your RAW images. As a RAW shooter and LR editor, consider the following:

a, Use the LR auto-tone and LR auto-WB against your images and "see" what LR thinks need to be done. Edit from there to our own preferred result.
b, Apply LR lens profiles to your images.
c, Develop your own noise and sharpening presets, rather than accepting LR's default settings. Use the ideas linked below.

Basics of noise processing

Basics of Lightroom Sharpening

1) Raw files are not a cure for underexposure or bad white balance.

2) Raw files contain roughly 12 to 15 stops of dynamic range, so SOME underexposure can be corrected on a computer if the scene dynamic range is much less than that.

3) You should plan on using software to adjust raw files, on a computer with a properly calibrated and ICC-profiled monitor made for graphic arts and photography.

There really isn't a way to shortcut the procedure if you demand quality and precision.

A *sometimes* acceptable alternative is to record JPEGs after making good choices regarding exposure. Cameras have MANY controls that affect the look of JPEGs made in the camera. It takes quite a while to master them and to know when and how to adjust what. Most perfectionists would rather record raw files and refine results in post. But if the lighting is relatively well controlled and unchanging, and the scene dynamic range is under six stops, JPEGs can yield excellent results.

1) Raw files are not a cure for underexposure or bad white balance.

2) Raw files contain roughly 12 to 15 stops of dynamic range, so SOME underexposure can be corrected on a computer if the scene dynamic range is much less than that.

3) You should plan on using software to adjust raw files, on a computer with a properly calibrated and ICC-profiled monitor made for graphic arts and photography.

There really isn't a way to shortcut the procedure if you demand quality and precision.

A *sometimes* acceptable alternative is to record JPEGs after making good choices regarding exposure. Cameras have MANY controls that affect the look of JPEGs made in the camera. It takes quite a while to master them and to know when and how to adjust what. Most perfectionists would rather record raw files and refine results in post. But if the lighting is relatively well controlled and unchanging, and the scene dynamic range is under six stops, JPEGs can yield excellent results.

And yet, when we step away from theory and ground the discussion in an actual image, what did we see?

ANS: Nothing overexposed, minor dark clipping in the unimportant shadows in a high-DR situation. The image reports no EV in Aperture Priority using Evaluative Metering. Seems maybe, given the involvement of a full-frame Canon EOS DLSR, the OP could have pushed the exposure to the right a bit more, say +1/3 or +2.3 EC, giving still brighter shadows with minor risk to highlights. But otherwise, the results of this pudding are the processing, given the fine image-capture ingredients.

(and a minor reminder: WB is not baked into a RAW, being fully editable / changeable in the digital editor. There's no such thing as a 'bad' nor 'good' WB in RAW.)

Paul, baking white balance into the EXIF data in a raw file will prime most post-processing software with those values, getting you close to what you want, IF you used a proper white balance target at the camera to set custom white balance for the JPEG. I do it all the time, and have done so since the Canon 20D I had 18 years ago.

The secret is that ALL the menu settings for the in-camera JPEG processor are recorded in the EXIF, which is part of the JPEG preview image stuffed into the raw file wrapper along with the raw data. You can essentially start out with the same look you would get from the in-camera JPEG, and tweak from there... It saves a lot of time and guesswork — provided you nailed reference quality exposure and white balance. It isn't always practical to do that, but in controlled, stable lighting situations, it is.

When I do that in Lightroom Classic, I change from the "Adobe Color" default setting to the "Camera Natural" profile I use when making in-camera JPEGs.

Regarding HDR and bracketing. This is September 2023 with the magic of an EOS full-frame DSLR, captured in RAW. And, a composition with moving subjects. The modern approach is to simply just process the shadows of the image and / or send a single processed image into an HDR plug-in. Here's a result from Topaz Adjust, with the Topaz result massaged further back in LR. I prefer a subtle HDR result, where working from the RAW, rather than a JPEG, would give even more control. If you open this version in one tab and the earlier processed version in another, you can see a bit more shadow recovery, but really just more of a "vivid" result in the saturation of the image.