TheFriendlyBarber wrote:
Rule 1.16 Declining Or Terminating Representation
(a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:
(2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client.
We do not have this provision in my jurisdiction and so have not researched its interpretation, but I question whether "knowing your client is guilty" amounts to a physical or mental condition that
materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client. Now, if said lawyer was a coke addict who could not be bothered to open any of his files, this would arguably materially impair their ability to represent. If they were suffering a mental breakdown then arguably, again, their condition would impair their ability to represent their client. In that case, you should be withdrawing representation from all clients, not just the one whose case bothers you the most.
Rule 1.16 Declining Or Terminating Representation
(b) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if:
(4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement.
Action is not repugnant merely because it offends your own moral beliefs or sensibilities. That would mean lawyers could quit anytime the relationship is unpleasant for them (and there will be a lot of unpleasant relationships in your legal career).
The action must be pretty out there to fall under this rule.
This provision for example does not apply to providing a defense to a client who has confessed to you. Defending a client is not about "proving" their innocence, it is about showing the prosecution does not have enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and giving your client a fair & full defence. This is why we have "guilty" and "not guilty". Not "guilty" and "innocent". It is rare that a defence lawyer believes their client to be wholly innocent.
Paragraph (c) A lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.
In practice, it is
much easier to be fired by a client, than to withdraw as their legal representation. Withdrawing in the middle of a trial (or shortly prior to) is generally seen as very prejudicial to the client and the system as a whole, and generally a lawyer must continue representation.