Adjunct Professor Joel Cohen wrote an op-ed in the New York Law Journal about whether there are factors beyond competence that should go into determining if an attorney is suited for a case s/he has been assigned to.
If a criminal lawyer has no conflict as an ethical matter that might decisively preclude him from representing a particular client, and has the skillset to “competently” represent him, one might firmly conclude that’s that—he can appropriately represent the client. Sure, a client might want the ideal or even perfect lawyer to represent him—assuming such a person actually exists—but that’s not always possible. The lawyer may not want the case; the client may not want to pay the fee being demanded.
But put that to the side. Are there factors beyond competence that should go into determining whether a technically unconflicted attorney might nonetheless be the wrong guy for the job? Are there considerations that should encourage the criminal lawyer who has been preliminarily selected as a contestant in the client’s “beauty contest” to communicate that he might not best serve the client’s interests?