Rule Text (verbatim from The Florida Bar)
A lawyer shall not seek to avoid appointment by a tribunal to
represent a person except for good cause, such as when:
(a) representing the client is likely to result in violation of the
Rules of Professional Conduct or of the 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.
Educational reference. This page summarizes a Florida Rule of Professional Conduct for educational purposes. The rule text and Comment are mirrored from the Florida Bar's official publication and are public domain. The plain-English summary and any commentary are the opinion of Phillips, Hunt & Walker and are general information only — not legal advice. Reading this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you believe a Florida lawyer has violated this rule, you can file a complaint with The Florida Bar at floridabar.org. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
What this rule means in plain English
When a Florida court appoints a lawyer to represent a client (typically in indigent criminal or family matters), the lawyer can decline only for good cause: representing the client would violate ethics rules, would cause unreasonable financial burden, or the client or cause is so repugnant the lawyer’s effectiveness would be impaired. Court-appointed counsel is part of the profession’s obligation to keep the legal system functioning.
Florida Bar Ethics Opinions interpreting this rule
- Opinion 81-9 (1981)
<p>A court-appointed defense attorney who files an appeal the lawyer believes is frivolous, but does so at the client's insistence and through approved procedure, is not committing an ethics violation. The court — not the lawyer — makes the ultimate call on whether to entertain a borderline appeal. The lawyer's job is to advocate within proper channels, not to gatekeep the client out of the system.</p>
Read on floridabar.org →
Comment (verbatim from The Florida Bar)
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 public service as
provided in these rules. See rule 4-6.1. In the course of fulfilling a
lawyer’s obligation to provide legal services to the poor, a lawyer
should not avoid or decline representation of a client simply
because a client is unpopular or involved in unpopular matters.
Although these rules do not contemplate court appointment as a
primary means of achieving pro bono service, a lawyer may be
subject to appointment by a court to serve unpopular clients or
persons unable to afford legal services.
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 4-1.1, 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.
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.
Amended July 23, 1992, effective January 1, 1993 (605 So.2d 252);
amended June 23, 1993, effective October 1, 1993 (630 So.2d 501).