The Client-Lawyer Relationship · 10-16% of the exam
4.1.2Duty to accept, reject, and pro bono (Rules 6.1, 6.2, 1.16(a))
Quick review — Pro bono and court appointments (Rules 6.1, 6.2) (taught fully in Chapter 22)
Three points, and the first is the aspirational one:
- Rule 6.1's 50-hour pro bono target is aspirational — a lawyer who falls short isn't subject to discipline.
- A tribunal-appointed lawyer may not seek to avoid the appointment except for good cause. Rule 6.2 gives three illustrations, not a closed list: likely rule/law violation, unreasonable financial burden, or repugnance rising to material impairment (mere distaste isn't enough).
- Rule 1.16(a)'s 2023 amendment opens with a general duty: "A lawyer shall inquire into and assess the facts and circumstances of each representation to determine whether the lawyer may accept or continue the representation." Comment [1] carries that obligation throughout the representation, and a change in the facts may trigger further inquiry. Crime-or-fraud use of the lawyer's services (Rule 1.16(a)(4)) is one thing the inquiry may reveal, not the measure of what must be inquired into. This is the newest amendment on the exam's radar; expect it to be tested. The intake half of that duty — whether to accept or decline the matter at all — is taken up in Chapter 22.
Questions · 3
Q 01ch04-e03
Question 1 of 3 · Rule 6.2
A trial court appointed Attorney to defend Defendant, who is charged with cruelty to animals at a boarding kennel. Attorney has no conflict, no scheduling difficulty, and no financial hardship from the appointment, and the court's fee schedule covers the expected hours. Attorney finds the alleged conduct disgusting and moved to be relieved on the ground that the cause is offensive. Attorney claimed no inability to prepare the defense, to examine witnesses, or to argue the case, and told the court the representation would be competent. The court asked Attorney to justify the request. Is Attorney subject to discipline?
Keys 1 to 4 choose.