Which of the following must a lawyer not do regarding non-compete clauses?

The responsibility of a lawyer in relation to non-compete clauses primarily revolves around the ethical implications of restricting a client's right to seek legal representation. Non-compete clauses that would prevent clients from hiring other lawyers can impede a client's ability to obtain effective representation, which is contrary to the interests of justice and the rights of clients.

Lawyers are obligated to prioritize the best interests of their clients, including the right of clients to choose their legal counsel. Therefore, including terms that would impede a client's choice in this manner raises significant ethical concerns and conflicts with a lawyer's duty to serve their clients' needs effectively.

Other choices, while potentially concerning in different contexts, do not carry the same ethical implications as enforcing a non-compete clause against a client's right to legal representation. For instance, including non-compete clauses in a will or establishing them as standard practice may be debatable in the context of professional conduct but do not straightforwardly violate the core principles of client autonomy and access to legal services in the same way. Enforcing a non-compete clause upon a partner's withdrawal or retirement also pertains more to partner agreements and firm dynamics rather than directly infringing on a client's rights. Thus, choice C stands out as the most clearly unethical option regarding non-compete