Under what circumstances can a lawyer refuse an appointment to represent a client?

A lawyer can refuse an appointment to represent a client under circumstances where representation would likely impose a financial burden on the lawyer. This aligns with the ethical duty of lawyers to only take on cases where they can provide competent representation without compromising their ability to meet financial obligations or the requirements of other clients.

For example, if taking on a case would require extensive resources or financial outlay that the lawyer is unable or unwilling to commit, declining the appointment is justified. It ensures that lawyers are able to maintain their professional responsibilities and provide adequate representation, which is essential in upholding the standards of the profession.

The other options do not meet the necessary criteria for a lawful refusal. Finding a client unattractive is subjective and not a valid reason for declining representation. High-profile cases may pose challenges but do not exempt a lawyer from the duty to represent unless specific conflicts arise. Lastly, if a client requires specific legal expertise, instead of refusing outright, a lawyer may seek to refer the case to a qualified colleague, which promotes the principles of competence and professional responsibility. Thus, financial burden is the only proper basis among the choices for a lawyer to refuse an appointment.