WISBAR 1969

Can a lawyer turn away a legal-aid (Judicare) client or accept them only at full customary fees?

Short answer: The opinion approved a Judicare policy: it is improper for an attorney to reject Judicare clients while offering to take them at customary fees, and improper to reject a client solely because the client requests service under the Judicare program.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1969. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1969
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

Informal Opinion 1/69 records the Professional Ethics Committee's approval of a statement of policy proposed by Wisconsin Judicare on attorneys refusing to represent Judicare clients. Judicare is the program providing legal services to eligible low-income clients under a set schedule of attorney's fees and costs.

Under Standard A, the committee approved, it is improper conduct for an attorney who represents Judicare clients under the Judicare fee schedule to reject Judicare clients while at the same time advising them that he would accept them as clients if they paid his customary fees. Under Standard B, it is improper conduct for an attorney to reject a client for the sole reason that the client requests service under the Judicare program. In deciding whether to accept or reject potential Judicare clients, attorneys are requested to examine Ethical Considerations 2-16 and 2-25 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1969, before Wisconsin's July 1, 2007 adoption of the revised Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys (the state's Ethics 2000 update), and it approves a policy tied to the Code of Professional Responsibility (EC 2-16 and EC 2-25). The current counterparts addressing the obligation to make legal services available and to accept appointments are SCR 20:6.1 / Model Rule 6.1 (voluntary pro bono service) and SCR 20:6.2 / Model Rule 6.2 (accepting appointments). 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 a lawyer turn away a Judicare client and offer to take them at full fees?

A: Under the approved policy, no. Standard A makes it improper to reject Judicare clients while offering to accept them at customary fees.

Q: Can a lawyer reject a client just because they ask for Judicare service?

A: No. Standard B makes it improper to reject a client for the sole reason that the client requests service under the Judicare program.

Q: What guidance applies when deciding to accept or reject a Judicare client?

A: The policy asks attorneys to examine Ethical Considerations 2-16 and 2-25 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Background and rules framework

The opinion approved a Judicare policy grounded in EC 2-16 and EC 2-25 of the former Code, concerning the availability of legal services. The current counterparts are SCR 20:6.1 / Model Rule 6.1 (voluntary pro bono service) and SCR 20:6.2 / Model Rule 6.2 (accepting appointments).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Model Rule 6.2 / SCR 20:6.2 (accepting appointments); former EC 2-25
  • Model Rule 6.1 / SCR 20:6.1 (voluntary pro bono service); former EC 2-16

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1969 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.