When a client can’t afford costs, can an attorney decide financial issues without consulting them?

Outline (quick skeleton)

• Opening note: money and ethics mix in real-life lawyering; a plain-English look at a common MPRE-style scenario.

• The question at a glance: which scenario justifies an attorney deciding financial moves without the client’s input? Answer: when the client can’t afford deposition and discovery costs.

• Why that answer fits the ethics framework: the attorney must safeguard the client’s interests within financial limits; sometimes swift, practical decisions help the case move forward.

• Why the other options don’t work as a blanket rule: client consultation remains essential for most financial and strategic choices.

• Practical takeaways: what money constraints mean in real-world representation; steps attorneys can take to stay on the right side of the ethics rules.

• Quick tips for readers: core ideas to remember; where to look up authoritative guidance.

• Closing thought: ethics isn’t a sterile checklist—it's about balancing obligation, fairness, and reality.

Money, motivation, and the MPRE: a straightforward scenario

Let me explain it in plain terms. In many legal matters, the courtroom isn’t just about arguments and evidence; it’s also about money. Depositions, discovery requests, and the costs that come with them can be a barrier for clients who don’t have deep pockets. In a scenario that pops up in ethics discussions, an attorney may handle financial decisions without looping in the client when the client simply cannot afford those deposition and discovery costs. In other words, the attorney acts to keep the case moving without asking the client to shoulder expenses they can’t possibly cover.

This isn’t a green light to shrug off the client’s input on every financial move. It’s more about a practical constraint—the client’s limited means can shove the case into a corner if every cost requires explicit consent. When costs threaten the client’s ability to pursue the claim or defend against it, the attorney’s duty shifts toward safeguarding the client’s interests within those financial bounds. The key is to avoid waste, to seek reasonable alternatives, and to avoid duties that would mislead or harm the client’s position.

The ethical frame: what rules are at play here?

Two foundational ideas underpin this scenario: the duty to represent the client zealously within the bounds of the law, and the duty to keep the client reasonably informed about financial matters that affect the case. In practical terms, this often means:

• Informed decision-making: the client should know what costs are necessary and why. When costs threaten meaningful progress, the attorney should explain options, even if a unilateral move seems tempting.

• Reasonableness and avoidance of waste: fees and costs should be kept within what’s reasonable for achieving the client’s objectives. If a client can’t afford deposition and discovery, the attorney looks for cost-effective routes that still honor the client’s interests.

• Client autonomy in material decisions: the client’s preferences should guide pivotal choices, especially those that could alter the case’s trajectory. There are moments, however, where the client’s constraints necessitate the attorney’s more proactive role.

The scenario commonly comes up when the issue is one of affordability rather than fundamental strategy. The attorney’s heavy lifting—making a financial call to keep the case moving—should be grounded in a belief that proceeding within the client’s means serves the client’s best interests.

Why the other options aren’t the governing rule here

Let’s run through the other choices to see why they don’t justify unilateral financial decisions in the same way:

• A. When the client is unavailable for consultation. Availability matters, but unavailability doesn’t automatically grant leeway to decide financial matters on the client’s behalf. The attorney should attempt to reach the client and document efforts to consult. If those efforts fail, the attorney still must handle matters in a way that respects the client’s interests and avoids prejudicing the case.

• C. When the attorney believes their decision is in the client’s best interest. Good intentions aren’t enough. Personal judgment can diverge from what the client wants or can afford. The MPRE emphasizes client consent and participation in decisions that shape the case, especially those with cost implications.

• D. When the decision pertains to settling the case out of court. Settlements are a charged topic in ethics. They almost always require meaningful client input. A unilateral move on settlement terms or costs could raise serious questions about whether the client’s preferences and goals are being honored.

In short, the only scenario among the choices that justifiably allows a unilateral financial move—without a fresh say from the client—centers on the reality of affordability. It’s a focused exception meant to prevent paralysis when costs threaten the sanity and viability of the case.

What this looks like in real life: practical steps and guardrails

So, what do these ethical ideas look like when a lawyer actually sits down at the desk and ponders costs? Here are a few concrete directions that keep the balance right:

• Talk about costs early and often. From the first meeting, spell out the typical costs for deposition, experts, and discovery. If the client says they can’t cover it, note that constraint candidly.

• Propose cost-conscious alternatives. Maybe a phased discovery plan, prioritizing the most essential requests, or using stipulations to limit costly procedures. Explore cost-sharing or financing options where appropriate and permissible.

• Document decisions tied to affordability. When the attorney links a financial decision to the client’s financial reality, put it in writing. This helps avoid later misunderstandings and shows respect for the client’s autonomy.

• Seek court permission or guidance when needed. If proceeding would require a cost beyond the client’s means, it may be appropriate to seek the court’s direction or approval for alternative procedures, reduced costs, or fee-shifting where allowed.

• Keep the client informed. Even if the path forward is clear due to affordability constraints, inform the client of what’s being done and why. Clarity reduces confusion and strengthens trust.

A brief word on broader context

Costs are a real choke point in litigation, and ethics rules aren’t about sweeping away every friction. They’re about ensuring the client’s interests aren’t traded away for speed or convenience. Lawyering isn’t only about clever arguments; it’s about using resources wisely, staying honest about what’s feasible, and helping clients navigate the messy economics that come with legal disputes. In many jurisdictions, the framework also encourages reasonable fees and, when possible, supports access to justice through options like pro bono services or flat-fee arrangements for certain tasks. These tools aren’t just practical; they’re essential for fairness and the integrity of the system.

A few quick reflections you can carry with you

• The core idea isn't that money trumps all else, but that financial reality shapes the choices that can be made without express client consent.

• The client’s interests aren’t a static target. They evolve as costs, stakes, and evidence shift.

• Communication is your most reliable ally. When costs might force a change in strategy, explain, listen, and revise together.

• Documentation matters. A short memo outlining why a decision was made, and what alternatives were considered, goes a long way.

If you’re learning about professional responsibility, this scenario is a useful lens. It isn’t about memorizing a single rule; it’s about internalizing the habit of balancing client autonomy with practical constraints. The ethical desert isn’t barren here—there are roads that lead to fair, efficient outcomes when costs loom large.

A few practical tips for readers who want to stay sharp

• Remember the guiding idea: act in the client’s best interests, within financial realities, and with as much client involvement as possible.

• Keep a running file of cost-related decisions: what was decided, why, and what alternatives were considered.

• When in doubt, slow down. Time can be a valuable ally, allowing you to explore options, negotiate, and avoid rushed, costly moves.

• Tap reliable resources for authoritative guidance. The ABA Model Rules and state bar ethics opinions are good starting points for nuanced questions about cost and consent.

• Consider the human side. Clients aren’t just case numbers; they’re people dealing with stress, risk, and uncertainty. Clarity and empathy in communications go a long way.

A closing thought

Money talks—sometimes loudly—in the courtroom. The ethical frame recognizes that, in the face of affordability barriers, a lawyer can take purposeful steps to move a case forward while still honoring the client’s interests and rights. It’s not a license to shortcut the client’s voice, but a reminder that practical constraints exist and must be managed with honesty, prudence, and professional care.

If you’d like, I can walk you through more scenarios and show how the principles apply across different contexts—costs in discovery, expert fees, and even the ethics around settlements. For now, take this core takeaway: when the client can’t shoulder deposition and discovery costs, a careful, client-focused approach can justify decisive action by the attorney—always grounded in transparency, reasonableness, and respect for the client’s financial reality.