Rule 6.2.Accepting Appointments 
 A lawyer shall not seek to avoid appointment by a tribunal to 
 represent a person except for good cause, such as: 
  
 (a)representing the client is likely to result in violation of 
 the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; 
  
 (b)representing the client is likely to result in an 
 unreasonable and oppressive 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. 
  
 

                                                                
ANNOTATIONSCOMMENT 
 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, sometimes qualified.  All lawyers 
 have a responsibility to assist in providing pro bono public service. 
 See Rule 6.1.  An individual lawyer fulfills this responsibility by 
 accepting a fair share of unpopular matters or indigent or unpopular 
 clients.  A lawyer may also be subject to appointment by a court to 
 serve unpopular or repugnant clients or causes or persons unable to 
 afford legal services. 
  
 Appointed Counsel 
 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 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 
 lawyer-client 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.  On the other hand, good 
 cause does not include such factors as the repugnance of the subject 
 matter of the proceeding, the identity or position of a person involved 
 in the case, or the belief of the lawyer that the defendant in a 
 criminal proceeding is guilty. 
  
 COMMITTEE COMMENT 
 Rule 6.2 is an outgrowth of the sentiment expressed in Ethical 
 Consideration 2-29.  To clarify a portion of the Comment under the 
 heading "Appointed Counsel," the Committee added some of the language 
 now contained in EC 2-29.