THIS CHOICE IS FORCED ON LEGAL AID ATTORNEYS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS AS A RESULT OF LIMITED RESOURCES. THE STAFF OF A LEGAL SERVICE PROGRAM, WORKING WITH HEAVY CASELOADS AND CONTINUING TO ACCEPT ALL CLIENTS WITH EMERGENCY PROBLEMS, MAY FEEL THAT THEY COULD DO MORE FOR ALMOST ALL OF THEIR CLIENTS IF THEY HAD THE TIME, BUT THAT THEY HAVE A PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO ALL NEEDY PERSONS SEEKING ASSISTANCE. IN SUCH AN OFFICE, THE SERVICE PROVIDED MAY BE ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY EMERGENCY-ORIENTED, CLIENTS MAY NOT BE MADE AWARE OF THE ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO THEM, LAWYERS MAY NOT BRING TO THE CLIENTS' ATTENTION MATTERS ON WHICH THE CLIENTS HAVE NOT REQUESTED ASSISTANCE, AND CLIENTS MAY NOT BE AWARE THAT THE SERVICE THEY RECEIVE IS DESIGNED TO MEET ONLY THEIR MOST PRESSING LEGAL NEEDS. THESE PRACTICES DEPART FROM THE NORMS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION. THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY CONTAINS NO OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO ALL WHO SEEK SERVICE, BUT RATHER PROHIBITS PRACTICES THAT RESULT IN CLIENTS NOT BEING FULLY SERVED. THE CODE DOES NOT SEEM TO PERMIT A TRADE-OFF OF QUALITY FOR QUANTITY, THE ETHICAL BOUNDARIES SHIFT, HOWEVER, WHEN THE CLIENT IS MADE AWARE OF THE LIMITATIONS OF THE SERVICES BEING PROVIDED. THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER CLIENTS WHO HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE AGREED TO THE LIMITED REPRESENTATION OFFERED THEM. A SECOND QUESTION CONCERNS THE RIGHT OF THE LEGAL SERVICE PROGRAM TO IMPOSE LIMITED SERVICE ON ITS CLIENTS. IN THIS MATTER, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION FORMAL OPINION 334 SUGGESTS THAT BROAD LIMITATIONS ON THE SCOPE AND QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED IN INDIVIDUAL CASES ARE UNETHICAL. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT MINIMAL SERVICE TO LARGE NUMBERS OF CLIENTS IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE WAY OF DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM OF LIMITED RESOURCES.