You are in private practice as a real estate attorney but, from time to time, accept clients with issues that touch on Constitutional Law. Your knowledge of Constitutional Law is limited, but when a prospective client comes to you regarding questions of Constitutional Law and decides to retain your service, you do ample research and provide the client with summaries of relevant Supreme Court precedents and their application to the client's facts. You are not admitted to practice before any Federal courts.

A prospective client approaches you about a question of Constitutional law. During your consultation with the prospective client, you realize the prospective client believes various conspiracy theories about the Federal government and several elected officials. The prospective client informs you that they want to know how they can sue certain elected officials for violating provisions of the Constitution, particularly related to the separation of church and state. As you talk to the prospective client, you have reason to believe the prospective client is paranoid and believes things about the government that do not align with your beliefs.

Is it ethical to offer to represent the prospective client, and if so, to what extent? Would it be ethical to allow the client to engage your services in a limited way, to advise the client of their prospects of success in their potential lawsuit, knowing you would not be able to represent the prospective client in Federal Court if their case went into litigation? Is it ethical to represent an individual who is paranoid or has beliefs not aligned with your worldview? Should you reveal your concerns about the prospective client's paranoia to someone in authority? Why or why not? What are the Christian worldview implications of providing representation to someone who believes something you do not agree with and cannot support? Include at least three relevant Scriptures to support your conclusions.