The General Rule of Autonomy in Private Practice
Private practitioners, including lawyers running solo practices or small firms, operate as independent businesses, giving them significant latitude in how they select their clients. These attorneys retain the general right to accept or reject new matters based on their professional capacity and business goals. This autonomy allows practitioners to focus on specific areas of law where they have deep expertise, ensuring they maintain a high standard of service. A lawyer considers factors like their current workload, the financial viability of the case, and whether the client’s needs align with the firm’s specialization before establishing a formal relationship. The decision is fundamentally a commercial one, treating the client-attorney relationship as a mutual business agreement that must be manageable and sustainable for the firm.
Key Ethical Limitations on Choosing Cases
While private firms are businesses, they are also bound by professional ethics that restrict complete freedom of choice regarding client acceptance. One significant restriction is the ethical duty to accept court appointments, which ensures legal representation for indigent individuals who cannot afford counsel. The Model Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 6.2, state a lawyer should not seek to avoid such appointments unless they have good cause for refusal. Good cause might include a situation where the case is likely to impose an unreasonable financial burden, or if the lawyer is not competent to handle the specific legal matter effectively.
Lawyers are prohibited from rejecting a potential client based on discriminatory factors, such as race, religion, or gender, or because they personally disapprove of the client or the client’s cause. Furthermore, attorneys must decline representation if a direct conflict of interest exists with a current or former client. This conflict is a mandatory ethical disqualification that ensures the lawyer’s professional judgment remains unimpaired and fully dedicated to the prospective client’s interests.
How Practice Setting Affects Case Selection
The ability of a lawyer to choose their cases often depends less on personal preference and more on the structure of their employment. For attorneys in public service roles, the concept of choice is almost entirely absent, as they operate under a direct mandate.
Public Defenders and Court-Appointed Counsel
Public defenders and panel attorneys who take court-appointed cases are assigned clients by a judicial or administrative body. Their professional mandate is to represent the individuals assigned to them, regardless of the nature of the charges or the client’s personal background. They must accept the matters directed to them by the court system.
Government Attorneys
Lawyers working for the government, such as state prosecutors or attorneys for regulatory bodies, represent the institution itself. Their caseload is determined by the agency’s mission, jurisdiction, and the investigations initiated by the state. These attorneys do not choose individual cases; rather, the selection criteria are defined by the institutional priorities of their employer and the legal needs of the state.
In-House Counsel and Big Law Firms
In-house counsel operate with a single client: the corporation that employs them. Case selection is limited to the company’s internal and external legal matters. Similarly, attorneys at large corporate law firms handle matters for the firm’s established institutional clients. Their work is dictated by the existing client roster and the firm’s specialized practice groups. In these settings, the lawyer’s choice is constrained by the confines of their organizational structure and the pre-existing client base.
Strategic and Business Reasons for Refusal
Even without a mandatory ethical duty to refuse, private lawyers employ strategic screening when evaluating prospective clients. A preliminary conflict check is always performed to identify potential issues, even if they fall short of a mandatory disqualification. Lawyers routinely decline cases for several business and practical reasons:
- The case falls outside their specific area of practice, which prioritizes reputation and competency.
- The potential client exhibits unreasonable expectations about the outcome or timeline of the litigation.
- The client is unable to pay the firm’s standard fee structure, making the case financially unsustainable.
- There is poor client chemistry or a lack of trust, which is necessary for a collaborative professional relationship.
The inability to pay fees is often the most frequent business reason for rejecting a matter.
When Lawyers Must Withdraw from Representation
A lawyer’s representation may cease even after a relationship has been formally established. Rules governing the legal profession delineate between mandatory and permissive withdrawal from a case, based on circumstances that arise after the engagement begins. Mandatory withdrawal is required if the lawyer discovers a conflict of interest that was not apparent during initial screening. It is also required if the client insists that the lawyer engage in conduct that is criminal or fraudulent.
Permissive withdrawal allows a lawyer to step away from a case under specific circumstances, provided the withdrawal does not materially harm the client’s interests. Common grounds include the client failing to pay agreed-upon fees or making the representation unreasonably difficult. In these situations, the lawyer must petition the court for permission to withdraw, demonstrating that the professional relationship has become untenable.