Home › Idaho › Rules of Professional Conduct › Rule 6.2

Court Rules Network • courtrules.net

Idaho R. Prof. Conduct 6.2

Not legal advice. Verify against official sources before relying on this text in any legal matter.

Rule 6.2 Accepting Appointments

Public Service

← Previous Rule 6.1: Voluntary Pro Bono Publico Service Next → Rule 6.3: Membership in Legal Services Organization

Rule Text

A lawyer shall not seek to avoid appointment by a tribunal to represent a person except for good cause, such as: (a) representing the client is likely to result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; (b) representing the client is likely to result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer; or (c) the client or the cause is so repugnant to the lawyer as to be likely to impair the client-lawyer relationship or the lawyer's ability to represent the client.

Plain-English Summary (for reference only — not a substitute for the rule text above)

This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.

When a court asks a lawyer to take on a case, the lawyer usually has to say yes. Lawyers can't just turn down an appointment because they don't feel like taking the case or don't like the client. Courts need lawyers to step up and represent people who need help, especially when those people can't afford their own attorney.

That said, there are a few good reasons a lawyer can refuse an appointment. A lawyer can say no if taking the case would force them to break ethics rules or other laws. They can also refuse if the case would cost them too much money to handle, more than what's reasonable to expect. Finally, a lawyer can decline if the client or the case is something they find so offensive that it would seriously hurt their ability to do a good job representing that person.

These exceptions exist for real, practical reasons. Nobody benefits from forcing a lawyer to take a case they can't afford to handle or one where their personal feelings would get in the way of doing solid work. But outside of these specific situations, lawyers are expected to accept court appointments as part of their job.

Committee Notes

[1] A lawyer ordinarily is not obliged to accept a client whose character or cause the lawyer regards as repugnant. The lawyer's freedom to select clients is, however, qualified. All lawyers have a responsibility to assist in providing pro bono publico service. See Rule 6.1. An individual lawyer fulfills this responsibility by accepting a fair share of unpopular matters or indigent or unpopular clients. A lawyer may also be subject to appointment by a court to serve unpopular clients or persons unable to afford legal services.

Appointed Counsel [2] For good cause a lawyer may seek to decline an appointment to represent a person who cannot afford to retain counsel or whose cause is unpopular. Good cause exists if the lawyer could not handle the matter competently, see Rule 1.1, or if undertaking the representation would result in an improper conflict of interest, for example, when the client or the cause is so repugnant to the lawyer as to be likely to impair the client-lawyer relationship or the lawyer's ability to represent the client. A lawyer may also seek to decline an appointment if acceptance would be unreasonably burdensome, for example, when it would impose a financial sacrifice so great as to be unjust.

[3] An appointed lawyer has the same obligations to the client as retained counsel, including the obligations of loyalty and confidentiality, and is subject to the same limitations on the client-lawyer relationship, such as the obligation to refrain from assisting the client in violation of the Rules.

← Previous Rule 6.1: Voluntary Pro Bono Publico Service Next → Rule 6.3: Membership in Legal Services Organization