MPRE Public Service 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under Model Rule 6.2, a lawyer may seek to avoid court appointment to represent a client in which of the following situations?
- The client's cause is politically unpopular in the community.
- The representation would result in a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. (Correct answer)
- The attorney would prefer to spend the time on a paying matter.
- The client has previously expressed dissatisfaction with other attorneys.
Correct answer: The representation would result in a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Rule 6.2(a) permits declining an appointment when representation would violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Question 2: Attorney Reyes is court-appointed to represent an indigent defendant whom Reyes finds morally reprehensible. Under Rule 6.2, Reyes:
- May decline the appointment solely based on moral repugnance.
- Must accept the appointment; moral disagreement alone is not good cause to decline. (Correct answer)
- May decline if the client's alleged conduct involves violence.
- May decline and suggest the court appoint a public defender instead.
Correct answer: Must accept the appointment; moral disagreement alone is not good cause to decline.
Personal moral disagreement with a client or cause is not listed as good cause to avoid appointment under Rule 6.2.
Question 3: Which scenario would constitute 'good cause' to avoid a court appointment under Rule 6.2?
- The case involves a subject matter outside the lawyer's expertise with no time to prepare adequately. (Correct answer)
- The lawyer already has a full caseload of paying clients.
- The client is charged with a crime the lawyer finds morally objectionable.
- The lawyer expects the representation to be financially burdensome.
Correct answer: The case involves a subject matter outside the lawyer's expertise with no time to prepare adequately.
Rule 6.2(c) recognizes that a significantly unreasonable financial burden or incompetence that cannot be remedied constitutes good cause to decline appointment.
Question 4: A lawyer accepts a court appointment to represent an indigent client. The lawyer later learns the representation will cause an unreasonable financial burden that was not foreseeable at appointment. Under Rule 6.2, the lawyer should:
- Continue representation regardless because withdrawal would harm the client.
- Immediately withdraw without court permission.
- Seek leave of court to withdraw, demonstrating the financial hardship. (Correct answer)
- Seek appointment of co-counsel to share the burden.
Correct answer: Seek leave of court to withdraw, demonstrating the financial hardship.
Rule 6.2(b) permits seeking to avoid or withdraw from an appointment when it would impose an unreasonable financial burden, but court permission is typically required.
Question 5: The commentary to Rule 6.2 states that a lawyer should not seek to avoid appointment merely because the client or cause is:
- Financially unable to pay attorney fees.
- Involved in litigation outside the lawyer's primary practice area.
- Unpopular or the client's views are regarded by many as repugnant. (Correct answer)
- Represented by a different attorney in a related matter.
Correct answer: Unpopular or the client's views are regarded by many as repugnant.
The comment to Rule 6.2 explicitly states that avoiding appointment is not justified simply because the client or cause is unpopular or the client's views repugnant.
Question 6: An attorney is appointed by the court to represent a defendant in a capital case. The attorney has never handled a capital case and lacks training in capital defense. Under Rule 6.2 and the competence obligations, the attorney should:
- Accept the appointment and learn on the job to serve the public interest.
- Seek to decline the appointment or move for associate counsel with capital experience. (Correct answer)
- Accept the appointment but immediately begin consulting capital defense resources.
- Accept only if the court agrees to provide additional funding for expert assistance.
Correct answer: Seek to decline the appointment or move for associate counsel with capital experience.
Lack of competence to handle a specialized matter like capital defense can constitute good cause under Rule 6.2(c) and implicates the duty of competence under Rule 1.1.
Question 7: Rule 6.2's underlying policy is best described as reflecting which principle?
- Lawyers must sacrifice personal interests whenever courts require.
- Access to justice requires lawyers to share the burden of representing those who cannot afford counsel. (Correct answer)
- Pro bono service is optional except when mandated by courts.
- Indigent representation should be handled exclusively by public defenders.
Correct answer: Access to justice requires lawyers to share the burden of representing those who cannot afford counsel.
Rule 6.2 reflects the principle that lawyers, as officers of the legal system, bear a civic responsibility to help ensure access to justice for those who cannot afford representation.
MPRE Public Service 3
Under Model Rule 6.2, a lawyer may seek to avoid court appointment to represent a client in which of the following situations?