David Luban on Stimson, cutting off access to justice, and the power of big business clients

The always-worth-reading David Luban has posted at Balkinization on the Stimson affair, and uses it as grist for a larger discussion on how access to lawyers (and hence access to justice) gets cut off in a variety of ways.  I agree with him that even non-lawyers should be skeptical about attempts by the government or corporate America to call the shots for the legal profession.  At the same time, I don't see where his thesis has any limitations.  In other words, is there nothing legitimate that  clients can do when their lawyers take up positions that offend the client, other than stew quietly and send yet more work to those lawyers?  And, does this question of client influence apply neutrally in both political directions, or does it work only to prevent clients from urging lawyers to adopt politically conservative stances?