[textbook]Traversing the Ethical Minefield Problems, Law, and Professional Responsibility by Susan R. Martyn (z-lib.org)(1) (1)

indigent litigants, plaintiff had open access to that market and has, in fact, accessed that
market, albeit unsuccessfully. It thus is proper to determine whether that market’s rejection
of plaintiff’s claims was the result of his indigency.
I conclude that it was not. The mere existence of indigency as a condition of the
plaintiff did not prevent him from suggesting to lawyers that they consider his claims.
Rather, he has had the same opportunity as middle- or upper-class plaintiffs to subject his
claims to the scrutiny of tort attorneys. That this “market” of attorneys has thus far rejected
his claims is the result of factors unrelated to his indigency. Primary among these factors is
undoubtedly the enormous cost of litigating claims against tobacco companies. . . .
Plaintiff asserts that most of the attorneys he contacted requested payment of a retainer
which he was unable to afford. However, due to the enormous costs involved in this type of
litigation and the unlikelihood of settlement, the amount of money required for an
adequate retainer would likely be so great that even a middle-class or upper-middle-class
citizen would be unable to afford it. As such, the rejection of plaintiff’s claims was not
based on his indigency, but rather on marketability factors such as the expenses involved
and the unlikelihood of settlement.
Because it is the lack of marketability of his claims, as opposed to his indigency, which
has prevented plaintiff from obtaining counsel, the notions of equal justice discussed above
have not been offended. As such, it is not reasonably necessary to the administration of
justice for this court to compel Metcalf to represent plaintiff. Accordingly, I shall not
exercise this court’s inherent authority to do so.
Problems
3-1. Should Martyn & Fox take on the representation of a financially strapped couple
who have just been served with a notice of foreclosure on their home? An indigent person
seeking to expunge a crime that stands in her way of getting a decent job?
3-2. How should Martyn & Fox respond if a housing court appoints us to represent,
pro bono, an indigent tenant who says she is being evicted because she tried to force her
landlord to repair the building she lives in?
3-3. Should Martyn & Fox ghostwrite a brief for a pro se litigant?
B. Unpopular Clients Model Rule 1.2(b) and Comment [5]
Problems
3-4. Should Martyn & Fox represent Credit Suisse in a case brought by descendants of
Holocaust victims who deposited money in the bank before World War II?
3-5. Should Martyn & Fox represent a client who wants to disinherit an adult child
because he married a person of a different race and religion? Would it make a difference if
the prospective client is near death and Martyn & Fox are the only available law firm?
75