Final answer:
A lawyer may voluntarily stop representing a client if there is a conflict of interest, the client agrees, or if continuing violates ethical rules or other laws. Adequate representation and avoiding conflicts of interest are critical according to cases like Strickland v. Washington and Glasser v. United States.
Step-by-step explanation:
A lawyer may voluntarily stop representing a client under certain circumstances. These circumstances include situations where there is a conflict of interest, the client consents to the withdrawal, or when continuing the representation would result in a violation of ethical rules or other law. For instance, in criminal cases, a lawyer must provide a defense that meets an objective standard of reasonableness. Failing to do so, as in the case of Strickland v. Washington, may not only harm the defendant's case but also might lead the attorney to choose to withdraw from representation if they feel unable to provide adequate defense. Additionally, in terms of due process, a lawyer must avoid conflicts of interest as established by Glasser v. United States. Padilla v. Kentucky further imposes a duty on criminal defense attorneys to inform clients of certain outcomes like deportation risks related to convictions, implying the need for competency in representation, which could be a ground for voluntary withdrawal if not met.