We suggest making that qualification explicit. This might suggest that the lawyer has an affirmative duty to take the deposition. But the lawyer might also withdraw. If the latter phrase is carefully read, the meaning is the same, but not all readers are so careful. With the proposed revisions, the Rule would read as follows.
Deletions are in strikeout type and additions in italics.
Lawyers are frequently asked to represent a client under circumstances in which a third person will compensate the lawyer, in whole or in part. Because t T hird-party payers normally have interests in conflict with the client, including interests in such things as minimizing the amount spent on the representation and in learning how the representation is progressing. See Rule 1.7. If the third party has agreed to indemnify the client and there is no significant risk of unindemnified liability, the client may have little or no interest in how the matter is handled. This is one basis on which it might be concluded, after consultation with the client, that there is no significant risk that representation of the client would be materially limited by the third party's interests.