Mark Hinderks has another interesting “Dear Ethics Lawyer” update: “Material Limitation Conflict Based on Client Dislike” —

• “Q: Dear Ethics Lawyer, I am a mid-level partner in a law firm. I have struggled to develop business until recently when I received a call from a law school classmate who recently became head of litigation at a major family-owned private company. They have lots of litigation, and even more money to pay for it. In many ways it is a dream come true for my career. But this company stands for some things that I think are simply awful. They are very political in an open way and have views I find distasteful. They use their big war chest of money to influence public policy in a way that I find repugnant. In our meetings they say terrible things about people I respect. I have to hold my tongue not to openly disagree with them. And now, my name will forever be associated with them. I am trying my best to do their legal work well, but I am struggling. Do I have ethical issues arising out of this situation?”
• “A: Let’s consider your situation in the context of the Model Rules. First, remember that Rule 1.2 specifically confirms that a lawyer’s representation of a client ‘does not constitute an endorsement of a client’s political, economic, social or moral views or activities.’ A lawyer may honestly and diligently represent even a despicable client without agreeing with what that client does or says. But, even a client the lawyer does not like is entitled to the same competence (Rule 1.1), diligence (Rule 1.3), communication (Rule 1.4) and other matters the lawyer owes every client under the rules. If the lawyer cannot provide that standard of care to a client because of that client’s views or statements, then the lawyer likely has a material limitation conflict of interest under Rule 1.7(a)(2). “
• “There are several types of material limitation conflicts, many of which have been discussed in this column (See issues listed under ‘Conflicts’ at www.dearethicslawyer.com). They occur when ‘there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.’ In your situation, consider whether there is a substantial risk that your representation of this client for the value of their fees and the quantity of their litigation will be materially limited by your disagreement with their views. If so, you have a conflict and should either withdraw or refer them to someone else in your firm. If you cannot make peace with the representation as a professional, and give the client the level of service required by the rules, then it will not turn out well for you or the client.”

“Chicago Mercantile Exchange replaces law firm in lawsuit against CFTC” —

• “Jenner & Block has moved to withdraw from representing CME Group’s Chicago Mercantile Exchange in a closely watched lawsuit challenging the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s decision to allow ​prediction markets platform Kalshi and cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase (COIN.O) to list perpetual futures.”
• “In a filing last ‌week in federal court in Washington, Jenner said unidentified ‘positional conflicts’ with other clients required the firm’s exit days after it lodged the lawsuit for CME, a longtime client.”
• “Jenner said the firm ‘is not withdrawing because of any issue regarding the ​merits of CME’s legal position in this matter or any disagreement with CME.’ A positional ​conflict can arise when a law firm advances an argument for one client ⁠that undercuts its arguments for another.”
• “CME Group, in a statement, said it was surprised to learn that Jenner ‘belatedly discovered apparent positional conflicts with other firm clients and withdrew at this stage’ but that the development ‘has nothing to do with the merits of this ​case — a point they made clear themselves — and does not change our position or resolve.’”
• “CME’s case is being closely watched by exchanges and ​crypto-market participants because it ​challenges a CFTC action ⁠that could clear the way for broader use of perpetual futures contracts, which allow traders to maintain positions indefinitely without contract expirations.”
• “In May, Coinbase and ​Kalshi launched perpetual crypto futures, bringing the products to U.S. investors through regulated ​domestic exchanges for ⁠the first time.”
• “CME Group Chief Executive Terry Duffy last month criticized the CFTC’s approval of perpetual futures, saying ⁠the agency ​had sidestepped its traditional review process for what CME considers ​a novel and complex product.”