Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam Practice Question
An engagement agreement states that once the attorney is hired, the client may not remove the attorney or hire replacement counsel. The client is wondering whether this provision can stand. Which statement is the most accurate?
It is valid if the attorney requires an additional signed document explaining the strict terms.
The answer depends on state case law and statutes.
It is permissible when combined with a reduced rate contingent on remaining with the same attorney throughout the matter.
It does not withstand scrutiny because it conflicts with a client's right to choose legal counsel going forward.
Model Rule 1.16(a)(3) and its commentary recognize an inalienable client right to discharge a lawyer at any time, subject only to paying for services already earned. Because the clause purports to make the representation irrevocable, it is contrary to that rule and is unenforceable. Requiring the client to sign a second form or conditioning a lower fee on staying with the same lawyer does not cure the ethical problem: the client's right cannot be bargained away. Although procedural details can vary among jurisdictions, the underlying principle remains constant; thus, the limitation is invalid.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
Why do clients have the right to choose their legal counsel?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What happens if a client wants to change attorneys during a case?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the implications of engagement agreements in legal representation?