(4) A client insists upon taking action that the practitioner considers repugnant or with which the practitioner has a fundamental disagreement;

In checking that box she states that the reason for the split is a fundamental disagreement and that she finds the action that the client(edig) insists upon taking to be distasteful, objectionable, and offensive.

If Mary Fales no longer working on behalf of Edig is such a non event, then why did she check the above box containing such forceful language?  Couldn't she just have checked the box that stated that the split will cause no harm to the client?  Something must have happened between Edig and Fales.  I do not believe that the Greenspoon Marder office taking over Mary's former duties is by any means automatic.