[BikerNYC]

Roberts advanced a very bad constitutional position when he didn't have to.

Yes, he did have to. The firm took the cause on as a client. It would have been a violation of his fiduciary obligations to his partners and the firm's client to refuse to help in the representation of the client. It makes no difference if the client is paying a fee or not paying a fee. If the tax department called him up and asked him for his advice, he could not refuse it because he did not happen to like the way the client conducted business. If he cared that much about it, he would have had to leave the firm.

[ModelBreaker]

The firm took the cause on as a client. It would have been a violation of his fiduciary obligations to his partners and the firm's client to refuse to help in the representation of the client.

That's not the way it works either under the Rules of Professional Conduct or practically. Just because one of his partners has a pro bono case does not obligate every partner to sign on.