That circles back to the question of Weinstein reputation.
Is a lawyer who has liberty to reject a client because the client can't afford the lawyer's billable hours also at liberty to reject a client because damage to the lawyer's reputation for representing that client is factored into the cost of doing business?
"Representing you will actively damage my future business, so you can't afford me" seems like a consistent position a lawyer could take on why a client must seek representation elsewhere.
And I am suggesting in a moral universe, legal talent would be rationed by the merit of the case, rather than the wealth of the payer.
The most talented lawyers would say "I don't take cases from scumbags like you. Find yourself one of the lower tiered lawyers.". Instead of saying "I work for whoever has the most money."
Is a lawyer who has liberty to reject a client because the client can't afford the lawyer's billable hours also at liberty to reject a client because damage to the lawyer's reputation for representing that client is factored into the cost of doing business?
"Representing you will actively damage my future business, so you can't afford me" seems like a consistent position a lawyer could take on why a client must seek representation elsewhere.