Can a court-appointed criminal defense lawyer withdraw after the indigent client files a bar complaint against the lawyer?

Plain-English summary

The Committee addressed court-appointed counsel for an indigent defendant charged with attempted rape and, later, with destruction of public property while in jail. The client filed a complaint against the attorney with the Mississippi State Bar. Counsel asked whether there was a conflict of interest, and whether he could request to withdraw so the court could appoint another attorney.

The opinion noted at the outset that the Committee would not tell a court what to do on a pending motion, but could address the ethical considerations guiding the attorney. It located the answer in Rule 1.16 and Rule 6.2. Rule 1.16 provides that a lawyer may withdraw for good cause if it can be done without material adverse effect on the client. Rule 6.2(c) provides that a lawyer should not avoid an appointment except for good cause, such as a client so repugnant to the lawyer as to be likely to impair the relationship or the lawyer's ability to represent the client. The opinion observed that the comment to Rule 1.16 states the lawyer's statement that professional considerations require termination ordinarily should be accepted as sufficient by the court.

The opinion concluded that once a client files a bar complaint against the attorney, the client-lawyer relationship is so drastically shattered that the conflict of interest between them becomes great enough to prevent the attorney from adequately representing the client. Although indigent criminal clients normally do not choose their counsel, the opinion concluded the obvious conflict would thwart justice to such an extent that the attorney may ethically request to withdraw. It added that Rule 1.6 authorizes a lawyer to reveal information relating to the representation to establish a claim or defense in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, and that Rule 1.7 prohibits representation that would be materially limited by the lawyer's own interest.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991, interpreting the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct (adopted effective June 22, 1994, and amended February 5, 1999). Mississippi did not adopt the ABA's 2002 Ethics 2000 revisions wholesale, but subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can appointed counsel withdraw after the indigent client files a bar complaint?

A: The opinion concluded the attorney may ethically request to withdraw, because the bar complaint shatters the client-lawyer relationship and creates a conflict great enough to prevent adequate representation; the court decides whether to grant the request.

Q: Does the lawyer get the final say on withdrawing?

A: Per the opinion, no. The ultimate determination is up to the court, though the comment to Rule 1.16 says the lawyer's statement that professional considerations require termination ordinarily should be accepted as sufficient.

Q: Can the lawyer reveal client information to respond to the bar complaint?

A: The opinion noted Rule 1.6 authorizes a lawyer to reveal information relating to the representation to establish a claim or defense in a controversy between the lawyer and the client.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct 1.16 (declining or terminating representation), 6.2(c) (accepting appointments), 1.6 (confidentiality, including the self-defense exception), and 1.7 (conflict with the lawyer's own interest), which track the corresponding Model Rules.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (Mississippi; cf. Model Rules):

• MRPC 1.16 (declining or terminating representation) (cf. Model Rule 1.16)
• MRPC 6.2(c) (accepting appointments; good cause to decline) (cf. Model Rule 6.2)
• MRPC 1.6 (confidentiality; self-defense exception) (cf. Model Rule 1.6)
• MRPC 1.7 (conflict with the lawyer's own interest) (cf. Model Rule 1.7)

See also

• MS Bar Ethics Op. 227: Withdrawing for Impairment
• MS Bar Ethics Op. 208: File Return as Discharge
• MS Bar Ethics Op. 236: Indigent Client's File

Source

• Landing page: https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/187/
• Original PDF: https://www.msbar.org/media/1449/35a_et_op_187.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS OPINION NO. 187

OF THE MISSISSIPPI BAR

RENDERED June 07, 1991

DECLINING OR TERMINATING REPRESENTATION- An attorney may request withdrawal as appointed counsel for an indigent where that indigent client has filed a bar complaint against the attorney.

The Ethics Committee of the Mississippi State Bar has been requested to render an opinion on the following set of facts:

Court appointed counsel for an indigent defendant, charged with attempted rape and subsequently charged for destruction of public property while in jail, wishes to know the ethical considerations of requesting to withdraw as counsel when the client has filed a Complaint with the Mississippi State Bar Association against the attorney. Is there a conflict of interest for this attorney who must defend himself from his client, and should the Court allow the attorney's request to withdraw and appoint another attorney?

It should be stated at the outset, that this Committee in no way will attempt to tell a Court what to do concerning motions pending before it. However, this Committee may respond as to what ethical considerations should guide the Attorney making the request herein. The Committee is of the opinion that the proper answer to this request may be found in portions of Rule 1.16 and Rule 6.2 of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 1.16 indicates that a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client for good cause if withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the client. Rule 6.2(c) indicates that a lawyer should not avoid appointment to represent a person except for good cause such as the client being so repugnant to the lawyer as to be likely to impair the client-lawyer relationship or the lawyer's ability to represent the client.

In the factual situation presented, the attorney has already been appointed to the representation, and the problem arises in that communication between the lawyer and the client would be strained, to say the least, by the client having filed a complaint with the Bar Association against the attorney. While the ultimate determination as to whether or not the attorney may withdraw is up to the Court, the comment to Rule 1.16 states that "The lawyer's statement that professional considerations require termination of the representation ordinarily should be accepted as sufficient by the Court".

The Committee is of the opinion that once a client files a bar complaint against an attorney that the client-lawyer relationship has been so drastically shattered that the conflict of interest between the attorney and the client would arise and be so great as to prevent the attorney from adequately representing the client. While indigent criminal clients normally have no choice as to who will represent them, the Committee feels that the obvious conflict of interest in having the attorney to continue representation would thwart justice to such an extent that the attorney may ethically request to withdraw from representation.

It should be finally noticed that Rule 1.6 M.R.P.C, authorizes a lawyer to reveal information relating to representation of a client to establish the lawyer's claim or defense in a controversy between the lawyer and the client. Also, Rule 1.7 M.R.P.C. prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if such representation would be materially limited by the lawyer's own interest.