Question for my fellow lawyers

and all others who think rationally:

So you're a lawyer who's been out of law school and practicing at the same place for three or four years. Your place of employment has just taken on a new client and your boss has assigned you the case, which requires urgent attention. You believe the new client should win, but you disagree with your boss's reasons for assigning you the case and demand time to think it over. Your boss agrees but warns you that the opponent in the case, a prominent businessperson, is dangerous and that taking the case could make that person your enemy.

At the end of the conversation,

If you are the protagonist of the novel I was reading last night, C. E. Murphy's Heart of Stone, the answer is C., "talk your way into a private meeting with opponent-businessperson, just the two of you," thereby violating at least one rule of ethics (opponent-businessperson is certainly represented by counsel, which means you talk to counsel not them) and justifiably pissing the hell out of your boss (if you ever bother to mention it) for . . . why, exactly?

(The conversation about why the case was being assigned to the protagonist was also weird on first read, but I'm saving that for when I'm done with the book.)