May a Missouri lawyer avoid a court appointment because the matter is in an unfamiliar area of law?

Plain-English summary

Rule 4-6.2 prohibits avoiding an appointment without good cause. The opinion lists likely Rules or legal violations, unreasonable financial burden, and a client or cause so repugnant that the relationship or ability to represent would be impaired.

Rule 4-1.1 requires legal skill, thoroughness, and preparation. Special training or prior experience is not always required because unfamiliar legal problems may be handled competently through necessary study and reasonable preparation.

In practice

Under this opinion, lack of prior subject experience triggers a competence plan rather than automatic avoidance. Avoidance becomes appropriate if the required competence cannot be achieved.

Common questions

Q: Is unfamiliarity alone good cause?

A: No.

Q: Can study supply competence?

A: Yes, when necessary study and reasonable preparation achieve the required level.

Q: What other grounds does Rule 4-6.2 identify?

A: Likely rule or law violation, unreasonable financial burden, or impairing repugnance.

Background and rules framework

Rule 4-6.2 governs avoidance of appointments, while Rule 4-1.1 and Comments [1], [2], and [4] govern competence in unfamiliar matters.

Citations and references

• Missouri Rules 4-1.1 and 4-6.2; Rule 4-1.1 Comments [1], [2], and [4]

See also

• ABA Formal Op. 498: Virtual Practice
• Missouri Informal Op. 2021-12: Virtual Practice

Source

• Landing page: Missouri Informal Opinion 2018-14

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Question: Attorney was appointed by the court to represent a client in a matter dealing with an area of the law in which Attorney has no prior experience. How should Attorney respond to the appointment?

Answer: Rule 4–6.2, Accepting Appointments, prohibits a lawyer from seeking to avoid appointment by a tribunal to represent a person except for good cause, such as where representing the client is likely to result in a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; representing the client is likely to cause an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer; or the client or 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. Attorney has an obligation per Rule 4–1.1 to provide competent representation to the client. Competent representation requires the legal skill, thoroughness, and preparation necessary for the representation. Comment [1] to Rule 4–1.1 provides relevant factors for determining whether Attorney employs the requisite knowledge and skill in the particular matter. Attorney need not necessarily have special training or prior experience in order to handle unfamiliar legal problems with competence. Rule 4–1.1, Comment [2]. Attorney should not seek to avoid the appointment based on Attorney’s unfamiliarity with the legal subject matter unless the requisite level of competence cannot be achieved through necessary study and reasonable preparation. See Rule 4–1.1, Comments [2] and [4].