Which of the following is NOT a reason a lawyer can reject a court appointment?

A lawyer may reject a court appointment for several valid reasons that align with ethical standards and duties of competence. When analyzing the options, a scheduling conflict stands out as not a sufficient reason for declining a court appointment.

A lawyer's duty to ensure competent representation and to avoid conflicts of interest governs their ability to accept appointments. If a lawyer recognizes that they do not have the necessary skills or knowledge for a particular case, it is ethically imperative to decline that appointment to protect the client's interests. Similarly, if accepting the case would create a conflict of interest—where the lawyer would have divided loyalties due to previous commitments or relationships—they must reject the appointment.

Furthermore, if the case is expected to impose unreasonable burdens on the lawyer, such as excessive demands on their time or resources, this too is a legitimate basis for declining. In contrast, a scheduling conflict is often seen as a matter of personal convenience rather than a fundamental ethical obligation, which means it does not meet the threshold needed to justify declining a court appointment under professional responsibility rules. Thus, the reasoning for rejecting a court appointment based solely on scheduling conflicts does not align with the higher ethical obligations lawyers must uphold.