When must a lawyer withdraw from representation according to MRPC Rule 1.16?

A lawyer is required to withdraw from representation when continuing the representation would result in a violation of the rules of professional conduct. This obligation arises because the lawyer has a duty to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and ensure compliance with ethical standards. If the representation poses a risk of violating the law or the established rules, the lawyer must act in accordance with this provision to avoid participating in any unethical or illegal conduct. This may arise, for instance, if the lawyer discovers that the client intends to pursue a course of action that would be illegal or fraudulent.

The other options don’t align with the ethical obligations outlined in the MRPC. While a lawyer may withdraw under certain circumstances voluntarily, it is not an absolute right to do so at any time without reason. Similarly, mere disagreement with a client does not constitute grounds for mandatory withdrawal unless it leads to a violation of the rules. Finally, while competence is essential, a lawyer is not automatically required to withdraw simply on the basis of being unqualified if they can reasonably become competent in the matter through preparation or association with another lawyer who is competent. Hence, the answer reflects the critical aspect of ethical compliance in all legal representations.