(Based on The State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct Formal Opinion No. 2014-190.)
A member may not withdraw from the representation of a client until the member has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client. (Rules of Prof. Conduct, Rule 3-700(A)(2).) When an attorney’s withdrawal is prompted by the dissolution of the attorney’s law firm, the requirements of rule 3-700(A)(2) apply to all clients of the firm, regardless of an attorney’s connection to any specific client or the specific nature of their affiliation with the firm. (Blackmon v. Hale (1970) 1 Cal.3d 548, 558 [83 Cal.Rptr. 194].)
“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)” (Rules of Prof. Conduct, Rule 3-700(A)(2).) The rule specifically references “members,” indicating that individual attorneys are responsible for compliance. (Rules of Prof. Conduct, Rule 1-100(B)(2).)
The totality of the circumstances must be considered to determine whether an individual attorney has taken reasonable steps as required by the rule to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to clients of his or her firm. (Flatt v. Super. Ct. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275, 297 [36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537]; Cal Pak Delivery, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1, 18 n.4 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 207].)
“Subject to any protective order or nondisclosure agreement, [a member whose employment has terminated shall] promptly release to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property. ‘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.” (Rules of Prof. Conduct, Rule 3-700(D)(1); Academy of California Optometrists v. Super. Ct. (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 999; Weiss v. Marcus (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 590.)
A lawyer violates his or her ethical mandate by abandoning a client (Pineda v. State Bar, 49 Cal.3d 753, 758-759), or by withdrawing at a critical point and thereby prejudicing the client’s case (Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 197). Unlike their clients, attorneys do not have an absolute right to withdraw from representation at any time with or without cause. “The right of counsel to withdraw from pending litigation is not absolute.” (Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 197.) Where withdrawal is not mandatory, an attorney normally must continue representation on the matter undertaken; the rules have been liberally construed to protect clients. (Vann v. Shilleh, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d. at p. 197; Chaleff v. Super. Ct. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 721; Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)
“Unless there is an agreement to the contrary, the retention of an attorney in a law firm constitutes the retention of the entire firm.” (PCO, Inc. v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 384, 392 [58 Cal.Rptr.3d 516].) “[B]y retaining a single attorney, a client establishes an attorney-client relationship with any attorney who is a partner of or is employed by the retained attorney.” (Streit v. Covington & Crowe (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 441, 445 [98 Cal.Rptr.2d 193].)
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.”
Los Angeles County, CA
.); (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.
Orange County, CA
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.”
Los Angeles County, CA
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.”
Los Angeles County, CA
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”).)
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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”).)
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
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.”
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Business
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
(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.
El Dorado County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
