Permissive withdrawal from representation—when a lawyer can ethically step back

Outline (skeleton)

• Hook: A quick, relatable scene about a lawyer stepping back from a case for ethical reasons.

• What permissive withdrawal means: why a lawyer might end representation without getting in trouble.

• The question at hand: which reason is NOT valid for permissive withdrawal? A, B, C, or D.

• Quick answer: C — “Lawyer has accepted another case” isn’t a justifiable ground.

• Why the others are valid:

• A: Client’s refusal to communicate blocks counsel.

• B: Client’s past fraudulent conduct creates a bad fit for representation.

• D: Client persists in criminal conduct riskily ties the lawyer to illegal activity.

• A bit of context: how the rules treat permissible vs. mandatory withdrawal, and what proper notice looks like.

• Practical takeaways: steps a lawyer should take if they withdraw, and how this helps keep clients safe.

• Close with a reminder: ethics rules exist to protect both clients and the profession, not to trap you in bad situations.

MPRE ethics, in plain language: what not to worry about when you’re thinking of leaving a case

Let’s start with a simple premise. Lawyers aren’t requires to drag themselves through every storm. Sometimes, the ethical thing is to step away. That’s what permissive withdrawal is about. It’s an option, not a mandatory exit, and it’s designed to protect the client, the attorney, and the courts. When we talk about the MPRE exam’s ethics scenarios, this idea shows up as a careful balance: when can a lawyer reasonably walk away, and what does a clean exit look like?

What does “permissive withdrawal” actually mean?

Think of it as a stairwell exit for a lawyer who finds the match between client and case isn’t melting into a good working relationship. The attorney isn’t forced out by bad conduct or a rule violation; instead, they’re allowed to stop taking on new tasks and finish up the essentials—like turning over files, giving notice to the client, and making sure the client isn’t left hanging.

This is different from mandatory withdrawal, where the rules require you to step back—think conflicts of interest that can’t be resolved, or if continuing would cause you to violate the law or the rules. Permissive withdrawal is more like saying, “I think we’re better apart here, and I’ll help make the transition smooth.” That’s the general spirit behind the MPRE’s ethics framework: protect clients, maintain integrity, and keep the system fair.

Let’s look at the multiple-choice question you shared. Which one is NOT a reason for permissive withdrawal from representation?

A. Client’s refusal to communicate

B. Client’s past fraudulent conduct

C. Lawyer has accepted another case

D. Client persists in criminal conduct

Short answer: C. Lawyer has accepted another case does not count as a justifiable ground for permissive withdrawal under the rules governing attorney conduct.

Here’s the breakdown, so you can picture it in real life

• A. Client’s refusal to communicate

If a client stops talking, you lose the ability to give good counsel. How can you form a strategy, advise on options, or prepare filings without a line of communication? When a client won’t respond, the attorney can seek permission to withdraw because continuing would undermine effective representation. It’s not about punishing the client; it’s about preserving the lawyer’s ability to represent responsibly and without guesswork.

• B. Client’s past fraudulent conduct

If a client has a history of deceit, it creates a risky environment for the attorney. Representing someone who’s engaged in fraudulent schemes can entangle the lawyer in unethical behavior or even criminal liability. In such cases, withdrawal is allowed to avoid assisting or sanctioning illegal activity. It’s a reminder that honesty and integrity aren’t optional accessories in practice—they’re the backbone of the profession.

• C. Lawyer has accepted another case

This one often feels like a “busy life” issue. It’s not, by itself, a red flag in the ethics rules. Simply taking on a new case doesn’t automatically mean you can’t fairly handle the current one. The key question is: can you continue to represent the existing client effectively without conflicts or neglect? If you can, you stay. If you can’t, then you might consider withdrawal—but the fact that a new case exists isn’t, by itself, a valid grounds for permissive withdrawal.

• D. Client persists in criminal conduct

If a client’s criminal activity continues, a lawyer faces a potential conflict with the duty not to facilitate wrongdoing. Continuing representation could implicate the attorney in illegal acts or assist the client’s crime. In such circumstances, withdrawal is not just allowed—it’s prudent. It protects the lawyer’s moral obligations and the integrity of the legal process.

Why this distinction matters in real life

Understanding these nuances matters because it shapes how you handle sensitive situations. The MPRE likes to test whether you can separate emotion from procedure, and whether you can apply a rule consistently when the stakes feel high. In practice, the process usually includes:

• Communicating intent to withdraw to the client

• Providing reasonable notice and a plan for transition

• Returning unearned fees and turning over documents the client is entitled to

• Avoiding leaving the client in a worse position than when you started

• If needed, seeking permission from the court or a disciplinary authority to withdraw, with justification

A practical note on timing and responsibility

Let me explain it this way: leaving a case midstream without a plan can cause real harm. Clients rely on you to carry through essential tasks, preserve documents, and avoid jeopardizing their interests. So the ethical move is careful planning. If you can wrap things up neatly, you do. If not, you pursue formal withdrawal with proper notices and a transition path. It’s not about a pop-out move; it’s about continuing to act in good faith.

A brief comparison: permissive vs mandatory withdrawal

• Permissive withdrawal: You have a legitimate reason to step back, but you’re not forced to. You proceed with due care and proper notice.

• Mandatory withdrawal: The rules require you to stop representing the client. Think conflicts that can’t be cured, or illegal or fraudulent demands that would trap you in wrongdoing.

In the question above, option C doesn’t describe a disqualifying situation. It’s more about capacity and time management, not about ethics violations or conflicts that would force a withdrawal. That’s why it isn’t a permissible ground on its own.

What this means for your understanding of the MPRE landscape

This kind of question helps you see how ethics rules aim to keep the system fair and professional. It’s not just about memorizing a list of do’s and don’ts; it’s about understanding why those rules exist:

• They protect clients from being abandoned in a moment of weakness or confusion.

• They shield lawyers from getting drawn into illegal activity or compromised positions.

• They preserve the integrity of the justice system by ensuring that representation remains credible and principled.

A few tips to keep these ideas alive in your mind

• When you hear “withdrawal,” picture two paths: what makes it permissible and what would force it (mandatory). The difference is not just academic; it affects how you manage cases, communicate with clients, and interact with courts.

• If a client’s behavior or decisions threaten ethical boundaries, pause and evaluate next steps rather than guessing.

• If you’re juggling multiple matters, guard your ability to serve each client well. If workload becomes a risk, look for ways to delegate, withdraw with notice, or seek guidance from ethics counsel rather than just burning out.

A friendly caveat about language and tone in ethics

Ethical rules can feel dry, but there’s a human core to them. They’re about trust. When a lawyer steps away for permissible reasons, it’s often a relief to the client who deserves focused, honest advocacy, not a distracted, half-hearted effort. On the MPRE, you’ll see scenarios that test whether you can balance this human reality with the strict precision rules demand. The better you understand that balance, the less likely you are to misinterpret a scenario as a personal conflict or as a chance to dodge responsibility.

Pulling it all together

So, when you’re faced with a question like the one you shared, the correct takeaway is simple: “Lawyer has accepted another case” is not a reason for permissive withdrawal. The other options reflect situations where withdrawal aligns with ethical duties or is required to protect the client and the profession. That distinction matters, because it helps you think through real-life cases with a steady compass rather than a knee-jerk reaction.

In the end, ethics isn’t about catching people out; it’s about keeping the profession trustworthy and the wheels of justice turning smoothly. The MPRE exam, at its core, invites you to see that bigger picture and to apply it in concrete, sometimes tricky, situations. If you can hold on to that view, you’ll navigate these questions with clarity and confidence.

Key takeaways

• Permissive withdrawal is a negotiated exit, not a punishment.

• A client’s refusal to communicate, past fraudulent conduct, and ongoing criminal activity are the kinds of grounds that justify withdrawal.

• Simply taking on a new case isn’t by itself a reason to withdraw.

• Proper notice and transitioning your client’s affairs are essential steps if you withdraw.

If you’re exploring ethics beyond this scenario, you’ll discover more touchpoints where fairness, responsibility, and professional conduct intersect in meaningful ways. And while the questions may be crisp, the practice of ethical lawyering is a continuous, evolving commitment—one that helps ensure every client gets the respect and diligence they deserve.