Duties to the Public · 2-4% of the exam
22.1.3Accepting appointments (Rule 6.2)
On this page
- Rule 6.2 — Accepting appointments.
Why
A tribunal that cannot place counsel has no way to deliver representation to the person standing in front of it. If lawyers were free to decline appointments at will, the least popular defendants and the least profitable matters would be the ones left without anyone.
Plain English
When a court appoints you to represent someone, you must not seek to avoid the appointment except for good cause. Personal disagreement with the client's alleged conduct isn't good cause, nor is a crowded calendar. Recognized grounds include:
- a likely breach of the Rules or other law,
- an unreasonable financial burden, and
- repugnance strong enough that the relationship or the effectiveness of the representation would likely suffer.
Rule
Rule 6.2 — Accepting appointments.
Rule 6.2 — Accepting appointments. When a tribunal appoints counsel, the attorney must not maneuver to duck the assignment absent good cause. Recognized grounds include:
- Taking the case would likely breach the Rules or other law (a real conflict, or inability to handle the matter competently).
- Accepting would likely place an unreasonable financial burden on the attorney.
- The client or the matter provokes such repugnance in the attorney that either the client-lawyer relationship or the effectiveness of representation would likely suffer.
On repugnance: The reaction must actually threaten the quality of representation. Believing that a criminal defendant almost certainly did the act is not good cause.
Example 1
Ex. 1
Carla is a civil litigator appointed by the court to represent an individual charged with a serious violent offense. She finds the charged conduct morally disturbing and moves to withdraw, arguing her personal views make effective representation impossible. The court asks whether her views will actually impair her performance. Carla cannot identify any concrete evidence that they will — she has represented accused defendants before and understands her professional duty to mount a full defense. The repugnance ground requires that the feeling genuinely threaten representation quality, not merely that the lawyer is uncomfortable. The court denies withdrawal, and the rules support that outcome. Grade Carla's discomfort against what the repugnance ground actually asks for.
Trap
Related — mandatory non-acceptance and withdrawal (Rule 1.16). Even outside court appointments, a lawyer must decline (or withdraw from) a representation whenever continuing would violate the Rules — Rule 1.16(a)(1). Common triggers: (1) the representation would use means with no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay or burden a third person, which violates Rule 4.4(a) — a spiteful motive behind a claim that does have a substantial purpose is not enough; (2) the claim or defense is frivolous — a good-faith argument to change existing law is still permissible; (3) the lawyer is incompetent to handle the matter, unless it's an emergency, competence is reachable through reasonable study, or competent co-counsel is retained. Separately, Rule 1.16(a)(2) makes withdrawal mandatory where the lawyer's own physical or mental condition would materially impair effective representation. Repugnance is not on this list — under Rule 1.16(b)(4) a lawyer may withdraw when the client insists on action the lawyer finds repugnant, but is not required to (Chapter 5). Rule 1.16(a)(4) adds a mandatory ground of its own: the lawyer must decline or withdraw where the client or prospective client seeks to use, or persists in using, the lawyer's services to commit or further a crime or fraud, despite the lawyer's discussion of the limits on assisting the proposed conduct. Under the 2023 amendment to Rule 1.16, a lawyer must inquire into and assess the facts and circumstances of each representation — before accepting and throughout the representation — to determine whether the lawyer may accept or continue it; crime-or-fraud use of the lawyer's services is one thing that inquiry may reveal, not the measure of what must be inquired into. Relevant factors: client identity and beneficial owners of entity clients, prior familiarity, nature of the requested services, jurisdictions presenting money-laundering or terrorist-financing risk, and trust-account fund flows.
Trap
Tip
Questions · 1
Q 01ch22-e02
Question 1 of 1 · Rule 6.2(c)
A trial court appointed Attorney, a commercial litigator, to represent Defendant on charges of setting fire to an occupied building. Attorney has handled criminal matters before and has open time on the calendar. Reading the charging papers left Attorney disgusted, and Attorney privately believes Defendant did what the state alleges. Attorney can point to nothing suggesting that this reaction would weaken the defense or the working relationship with Defendant, and Attorney has mounted vigorous defenses for unpopular clients in the past. Attorney nevertheless drafts a motion asking the court to appoint someone else, resting the request on personal distaste alone. May Attorney seek to be relieved of the appointment?
Keys 1 to 4 choose.