Final answer:
Private attorneys may be restricted from taking cases involving federal questions, where the U.S. government is a party, or where conflicts of interest occur. The Seventh Amendment limits the ability to review facts determined by a jury, cementing the separation of fact-finding between judges and juries.
Defendants' right to impartial juries and competent legal representation in serious criminal cases is also secured under constitutional law.
Step-by-step explanation:
Matters Private Attorneys Cannot Take
In legal terms, there are specific circumstances and matters where a private attorney may be prohibited from representing a client.
This can occur in cases that involve a “federal question” related to the Constitution, federal laws or treaties. Additionally, a private attorney might be disqualified from cases where there is a conflict of interest, such as being a “federal party” if the U.S. government is involved in the lawsuit.
The Seventh Amendment places limitations on the ability of appellate judges to review questions of fact that have been decided by a jury. Attorneys must navigate these legal frameworks while ensuring the right to an impartial jury and due process, as codified in cases such as Glasser v. United States.
For defendants in serious crimes, there is a constitutional right to legal representation, which, if they can't afford one, must be provided by the state in the form of a public defender - a principle established by Gideon v. Wainwright and other landmark case laws.
It's important to consider conflicts of interest, judicial impartiality, and the right to an impartial jury when discussing what kind of matters a private attorney can or cannot take on. For example, no individual is allowed to be a judge in their cause as it would likely impact their judgment's fairness and integrity.
This principle extends to attorneys, who must remain impartial and refrain from taking cases where they might have a personal stake or conflict of interest.