2. Q: What would you do if you
were asked to work on a case
that you found your client’s
position totally repugnant to
your sensibilities, such as a
pedophile or wife beater?
A:
It Depends…
• I think my response
would be dependent on
the type of personal
relation I have to the
repugnant factors and the
extent that it renders me
incapable of objectivity.

3. RPC 3-700(A)
(A) In General.
(1) If permission for termination of employment is required
by the rules of a tribunal, a member shall not withdraw
from employment in a proceeding before that tribunal
without its permission.
(2) A member shall not withdraw from employment until
the member has taken reasonable steps to avoid
reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the
client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing
time for employment of other counsel, complying with
rule 3-700(d) and complying with applicable laws and
rules.

4. Comments
• I think the requirement to get permission before being
able to withdrawal from representing a client is a way
of ensuring the reasons for the parting are sufficient
enough to negate the duty of loyalty and service.
Attorney’s may not simply walk away from a client or
case without a very good reason. This section
delegates the initial steps in the termination process.
• Although an attorney may have the desire to end the
relationship he cannot let his emotions get in the way
of his responsibilities. If he decides to proceed and the
permission to withdraw is granted, he cannot then
abandon the client without first taking action to keep
the client on the appropriate legal track.

5. RPC 3-700(B)(3)
(B) Mandatory Withdrawal.
• A member representing a client before a tribunal shall
withdraw from employment with the permission of
the tribunal, if required by its rules, and a member
representing a client in other matters shall withdraw
from employment, if:
(3) The member’s mental or physical condition renders
it unreasonably difficult to carry out the employment
effectively.

6. Comments
• I think that this section may be interpreted for the purposes of our
discussion as obligating withdrawal of representation if the attorney
is mentally incapacitated by the character of his client. If you find
your client so overwhelmingly repugnant, distaste experienced in
both thought and emotion, you should be barred from representing
him. Emotions can have a strong effect and manifest in a variety of
ways. They absolutely may (and often do) conflict with logic.
Logical thinking and processes are necessary for adequate legal
representation but emotional conflict can mentally and even
physical incapacitate you. An attorney is supposed to advocate for
his client and take a bias stance in his favor and interest. However
at the same time he must maintain a level of objectivity so as to not
get clouded by personal perspective or feelings. I do think that if
the powers are aware of the attorney’s incapacitating issue they
have a duty to require the attorney to withdrawal regardless if his
issue stems from his personal stance on his client.

7. RPC 3-700(C)(1d)(4)(6)
(C) Permissive Withdrawal.
• If rule 3-700(B) is not applicable, a member may not
request permission to withdraw in matters pending before
a tribunal, and may not withdraw in other matters, unless
such request or such withdrawal is because:
(1) The client
(d) by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the
member to carry out the employment effectively, or
(4) The member’s mental or physical condition renders it
difficult for the member to carry out the employment
effectively; or
(6) The member believes in good faith, in a proceeding
pending before a tribunal, that the tribunal will find the
existence of other good cause for withdrawal.

8. Comments
• Have you ever seen the movie Devil’s Advocate? In the beginning a girl is
testifying to her teacher molesting her and while she is on the stand the defendant is
getting noticeable sexually aroused listening to her recount the events. He makes
inappropriate jesters that the defense attorney sees. The attorney reacted as if he
found it repugnant. I considered having to represent a client who did things like
that. Would his conduct be so repugnant to justify requesting permission to
withdrawal? What if I witnessed the client who is accused of molestation attempt
to talk to and flirt with under aged girls on several occasions? He hasn’t been
convicted yet but I suspect from his actions that he is guilty. I do think that I would
have a difficult time with this conduct however I do not think that it would be
enough to permit withdrawal from representation.
• Consider a scenario in which an attorney is employed to represent a once
convicted, twice charged child molester. Add in the personal experience of the
attorney being molested when he was a child and his abuser was tried and
convicted. The attorney no doubt feels a strong repugnancy (possibly hatred) for
child molesters and knows for a fact that his client was already convicted once for
molestation. How could he efficiently defend this person? It is unreasonable to
think that any person no matter their level of professionalism and objectivity would
be able to maintain those levels throughout this type of situation which has such a
negative and personal meaning to them. Given these circumstances it is reasonable
to believe that a tribunal would permit the withdrawal in the interest of fairness to
both the attorney and the client.

9. Maintain perspective on
personal factors and
objectivity in representation
in the interest of loyalty and
service.
If you are justifiably too
put off by your client to the
point of becoming
incapacitated and unable
to efficiently do your job, I
think the responsible thing
to do is give the client a
fair chance and don’t
represent them.

10. Rules of Professional Conduct
Chapter 3: Professional
Relationship with Client
Rule 3-700: Termination of
Employment