Which scenario triggers withdrawal under the rules?

• A. The attorney must withdraw when the client is acting merely to harass or maliciously injure another.
• B. Withdrawal is required only if the court orders it.
• C. The attorney cannot resign if the client is prejudiced by resignation.
• D. The attorney must withdraw if the client intends to commit a crime in the future.

Answer: (A)

This tests the duty to withdraw when continuing representation would involve the lawyer in improper conduct by the client. If a client is using the attorney’s services solely to harass or maliciously injure someone, the attorney cannot ethically stay on the case because that would make the lawyer an instrument of wrongdoing. Withdrawal is required in this scenario even without any court order, since continuing would facilitate an improper objective.

The other situations aren’t automatic triggers. Withdrawal isn’t limited to court orders—the rules allow withdrawal whenever continuing representation would violate ethical duties. A claim that the attorney cannot resign if the client would be prejudiced by resignation is not correct, since a lawyer may withdraw even if it prejudices the client. And simply a future criminal intent by the client does not automatically force withdrawal unless the lawyer would be aiding or facilitating that crime; the harassment scenario clearly and directly implicates the lawyer in an improper purpose, making withdrawal the best answer.