What obligations does a lawyer have when he moves to a new firm or his firm is dissolved?

Useful Rulings on Dissolving Firm and Moving to New Firm

Recent Rulings on Dissolving Firm and Moving to New Firm

ELEAZAR URIZAR VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (LACMTA), ET AL.

An attorney, either with client's consent or court's approval, may withdraw from case when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to client's interests; however, sn attorney “shall not withdraw from employment until the member has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, complying with rule 3-700(D), and complying with applicable laws and rules.”

  • Hearing

RAHGOSHAY VS. PUGH

.); (vii) Refused to turn over Plaintiffs’ files in violation of Rule 3-700(D); and (viii) Failed to obtain a written retainer agreement for contingent work in excess of $1,000.00. Defendants’ separate statement fails to provide any evidence addressing these allegations. Thus, as with the First Cause of Action, Defendants fail to address all material allegations of the operative pleading, which requires denial of the motion for summary judgment.

  • Hearing

DEBBY FRANK VS CITY OF TORRANCE, ET AL.

An attorney, either with client's consent or court's approval, may withdraw from case when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to client's interests; however, an attorney “shall not withdraw from employment until the member has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, complying with rule 3-700(D), and complying with applicable laws and rules.”

  • Hearing

DEBBY FRANK VS CITY OF TORRANCE, ET AL.

An attorney, either with client's consent or court's approval, may withdraw from case when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to client's interests; however, an attorney “shall not withdraw from employment until the member has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, complying with rule 3-700(D), and complying with applicable laws and rules.”

  • Hearing

CESAR ROMERO ET AL VS FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY ET AL

Marcus (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 590, 599; see California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-700(D)(1) (“‘Client papers and property’ includes correspondence, pleadings, deposition transcripts, exhibits, physical evidence, expert’s reports, and other items reasonably necessary to the client’s representation, whether the client has paid for them or not”).)

  • Hearing

ARACELI RIOS ET AL VS PABLO FLORES ET AL

Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2); Vann, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d at 197). Where the procedures are properly followed, withdrawal is permitted in the appropriate circumstances.

  • Hearing

CESAR ROMERO ET AL VS FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY ET AL

Marcus (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 590, 599; see California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-700(D)(1) (“‘Client papers and property’ includes correspondence, pleadings, deposition transcripts, exhibits, physical evidence, expert’s reports, and other items reasonably necessary to the client’s representation, whether the client has paid for them or not”).)

  • Hearing

TIM BAKER ET AL VS WILLIAM HOBBS ET AL

Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2); Vann, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d at 197). Where the procedures are properly followed, withdrawal is permitted in the appropriate circumstances.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DONENUCI D'CARPIO VS SELDAT, INC., ET AL.

Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2); Vann, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d at 197). Where the procedures are properly followed, withdrawal is permitted in the appropriate circumstances.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DONENUCI D'CARPIO VS SELDAT, INC., ET AL.

Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2); Vann, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d at 197). Where the procedures are properly followed, withdrawal is permitted in the appropriate circumstances.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

EMANUEL BROWN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2); Vann, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d at 197). Where the procedures are properly followed, withdrawal is permitted in the appropriate circumstances.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JUSTINE MAJOR VS HOMER WILLIAM GROENING

Pursuant to California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2), “[a] member shall not withdraw from employment until the member has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, complying with rule 3-700(D), and complying with applicable laws and rules.”

  • Hearing

EVAN ISRAEL BRENNER VS MIKA JAYMES INC ET AL

Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2); Vann, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d at 197). Where the procedures are properly followed, withdrawal is permitted in the appropriate circumstances.

  • Hearing

FRANKIE ORTIZ VS JOSE LUIS MARTINEZ

Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2).) The motion should be denied if it will cause undue delay in the proceeding or cause injustice. (Mandell v. Sup. Ct. (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4.) The determination whether to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, having in mind whether such withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the case. (Lempert v. Sup. Ct. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1173.)

  • Hearing

MARCIAL A. WILLIAMS VS ARBOR GROVE SENIOR APARTMENTS, ET AL

Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2).) The motion should be denied if it will cause undue delay in the proceeding or cause injustice. (Mandell v. Sup. Ct. (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4.) The determination whether to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, having in mind whether such withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the case. (Lempert v. Sup. Ct. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1173.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

REVOLT ELECTRIC INC. VS ADRIAN COVA, ET AL

Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2).) The motion should be denied if it will cause undue delay in the proceeding or cause injustice. (Mandell v. Sup. Ct. (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4.) The determination whether to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, having in mind whether such withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the case. (Lempert v. Sup. Ct. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1173.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

WS INVESTMENTS PROPERTY LLC VS IMELDA BALANAY ET AL

Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2); Vann, supra 54 Cal.App.3d at 197). Where the procedures are properly followed, withdrawal is permitted in the appropriate circumstances.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

FERNANDO OCTAVIO CATALAN VS ALL SERVICE DISPOSAL INC ET AL

Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2); Vann, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d at 197). Where the procedures are properly followed, withdrawal is permitted in the appropriate circumstances.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CLINT A CARMANY VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2); Vann, supra 54 Cal.App.3d at 197). Where the procedures are properly followed, withdrawal is permitted in the appropriate circumstances.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ZERO ENERGY VS GEORGE ARREDONDO

Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2); Vann, supra 54 Cal.App.3d at 197). Where the procedures are properly followed, withdrawal is permitted in the appropriate circumstances.

  • Hearing

ZERO ENERGY VS GEORGE ARREDONDO

Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2); Vann, supra 54 Cal.App.3d at 197). Where the procedures are properly followed, withdrawal is permitted in the appropriate circumstances.

  • Hearing

ZERO ENERGY VS GEORGE ARREDONDO

Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2); Vann, supra 54 Cal.App.3d at 197). Where the procedures are properly followed, withdrawal is permitted in the appropriate circumstances.

  • Hearing

NANCY TAN VS RAMEZ SULIAMEN ET AL

Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2); Vann, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d at p. 197). Where the procedures are properly followed, withdrawal is permitted in the appropriate circumstances.

  • Hearing

SHERMAN V. HANSON

(Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3- 700(A)(2); Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 197, 126 Cal.Rptr. 401.) We are, however, aware of no authority preventing an attorney from withdrawing from a case when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client's interests. Rather, in situations such as the present, the disincentive for withdrawing is the potential loss of any attorney fees. (See Estate of Falco (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 233 Cal.Rptr. 807 and Hensel v.

  • Hearing

NANCY TAN VS RAMEZ SULIAMEN ET AL

Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2); Vann, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d at 197). Where the procedures are properly followed, withdrawal is permitted in the appropriate circumstances.

  • Hearing

1 2 3     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.