(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].)

Legal Standard

“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.)

Duty to Clients of the Firm

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].)