Lawyer vs. Doctor, whose ethical obligations are higher?

      My Shingle has a great post titled "Would you fire a client who doesn’t take your advice? Here is what doctors are doing…" I have posted previously about the necessity of firing clients on a regular basis in order to maintain the health of your law firm. (find another post here)

      The article reported on My Shingle discusses the ethical obligations of a doctor to handle a patients care even when the patient is not following the advice of the doctor. For me, I would fire a clients simply because they don’t match my business model, my business philosophy or a simply see them as a problem client. I have never thought that I have any ethical obligation to provide legal services to any particular prospect. This makes me wonder whether the physicians ethical duty is actually higher than the lawyers. It would not be surprising to me if it is substantially higher since there is a difference between a patient who does not receive the medical care that they require and client who potentially does not get to assert a right that they believe they have. Are health issues more important than legal rights? Should lawyers be forced by ethical obligation to represent anyone who comes through their door whose legal rights have been objectively violated? Is there a difference between a client who comes to you with questionable causes of action versus a client that comes to you with clear causes of action who you simply do not what to service?