Which of the following is a valid reason for mandatory withdrawal from a client?

A valid reason for mandatory withdrawal from a client is when the client insists on a violation of the law. This is grounded in the ethical obligation of lawyers to uphold the law and the justice system. If a client requests a lawyer to engage in or advocate for illegal conduct, the lawyer has a duty to withdraw from the representation. This obligation is fundamental to maintaining the integrity of the legal profession and ensuring that legal services are not used to facilitate unlawful behavior.

In contrast, a client refusing to pay fees typically does not necessitate mandatory withdrawal. While it may lead to withdrawal under certain circumstances (depending on jurisdiction), it is generally not a sufficient reason for a lawyer to be required to withdraw. Similarly, the lawyer's personal preference does not constitute a valid reason for mandatory withdrawal; decisions regarding client representation must be based on ethical obligations rather than personal feelings. Lastly, a change in a client's financial circumstances might create practical challenges for continuing representation, but it does not automatically compel a lawyer to withdraw unless it affects the ability to represent the client competently. These considerations highlight the importance of withdrawal decisions being guided primarily by ethical standards and legal obligations rather than subjective or situational inconveniences.