Model Rule 6.2: Accepting Appointments
Rule 6.2 says a lawyer must not dodge a court appointment to represent a client without a genuinely good reason. It presumes lawyers have an obligation to take on unpopular or unpaid cases when appointed, unless a specific, legitimate excuse applies. The rule gives illustrative examples of good cause for asking to be excused; the list is not exhaustive.
When it applies
This comes up when a court assigns counsel to indigent criminal defendants or in other pro bono appointment systems, and a lawyer wants to avoid the assignment. On the MPRE, it tests whether a stated reason for declining an appointment is legitimate or merely a pretext (e.g., personal inconvenience, dislike of the client, or unpopularity of the cause).
What the rule requires
- A lawyer ordinarily shall not seek to avoid an appointment by a tribunal to represent a person, absent good cause.
- Good cause exists if representing the client is likely to result in a violation of the rules of professional conduct or other law.
- Good cause exists if representing the client would impose an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer.
- Good cause exists if the client or cause is so repugnant to the lawyer that it would likely impair the client-lawyer relationship or the lawyer's ability to represent the client effectively.
- The lawyer's personal distaste, inconvenience, or the case's unpopularity alone does not constitute good cause.
Exceptions
- A conflict of interest under Rule 1.7 or Rule 1.9 that cannot be resolved is a valid basis to decline.
- If the lawyer lacks the competence required under Rule 1.1 and cannot acquire it in time, that can justify seeking to avoid appointment.
How the MPRE tests Model Rule 6.2
- Students think any personal objection (busy schedule, low pay, disagreement with client's views) is enough to refuse an appointment when it is not.
- MPRE questions may disguise a legitimate 'unreasonable financial burden' claim versus an illegitimate 'I'd rather not' excuse.
- Confusing this rule with a lawyer's general freedom to decline representation in ordinary (non-appointed) matters, which is broader. Rule 1.16 separately governs when a lawyer must decline and when a lawyer may withdraw, and withdrawing from an appointed matter requires the tribunal's permission.
- Overlooking that moral repugnance must be strong enough to actually impair the client-lawyer relationship or effective representation, not just mild personal disapproval.
Example
A court appoints an attorney to represent a defendant charged with a crime the attorney finds morally objectionable, and the attorney asks to be relieved solely because she disagrees with the client's alleged conduct. Because mere distaste for the case, without a showing that it would impair her ability to represent the client, is not good cause, the request to avoid the appointment should be denied. Had she shown that her repugnance was so strong it would likely impair the client-lawyer relationship or her ability to represent the client, or that the appointment would impose an unreasonable financial burden, she would have had good cause to seek to be excused.
Related rules
A plain-English summary of the ABA Model Rule, not the rule text. Your jurisdiction's version of the rule controls in practice.