6.2 Accepting Appointments
A lawyer shall not seek to avoid appointment by a tribunal to represent a person except for good cause, such as:
(a) representing the client is likely to result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;
(b) representing the client is likely to result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer; or
(c) the client or the cause is so repugnant to the lawyer as to be likely to impair the client-lawyer relationship or the lawyer?s ability to represent the client.
 A lawyer ordinarily is not obliged to accept a client whose character or cause the lawyer regards as repugnant. The lawyer?s freedom to select clients is, however, qualified. All lawyers have a responsibility to assist in providing pro bono publico service. See Rule 6.1. An individual lawyer fulfills this responsibility by accepting a fair share of unpopular matters or indigent or unpopular clients. A lawyer may also be subject to appointment by a court to serve unpopular clients or persons unable to afford legal services.
 For good cause a lawyer may seek to decline an appointment to represent a person who cannot afford to retain counsel or whose cause is unpopular. Good cause exists if the lawyer could not handle the matter competently, see Rule 1.1, or if undertaking the representation would result in an improper conflict-of-interest, for example, when the client or the cause is so repugnant to the lawyer as to be likely to impair the client-lawyer relationship or the lawyer?s ability to represent the client. A lawyer may also seek to decline an appointment if acceptance would be unreasonably burdensome, for example, when it would impose a financial sacrifice so great as to be unjust.
 An appointed lawyer has the same obligations to the client as retained counsel, including the obligations of loyalty and confidentiality, and is subject to the same limitations on the client-lawyer relationship, such as the obligation to refrain from assisting the client in violation of the Rules.
Model Rule 6.2 (2002), addressing a lawyer?s obligation to accept court appointments, has no direct Maine Bar Rule counterpart (but see M. Bar R. 2-A addressing lawyers? pro bono obligations). The obligation recognized by Rule 6.2 is generally ?analyzed as a derivative of the court?s inherent judicial power.? (See ABA Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Fifth edition, p. 514). This Rule has been described as ?protecting the court?s own institutional interests as well as those of the individual litigant.? (Id.)
Because the Task Force thought Model Rule 6.2 (2002) was a clear articulation of what has been the practice in Maine, it recommended its adoption as written.