Withdrawal from representation

Last updated

Withdrawal from representation, in United States law, occurs where an attorney terminates a relationship of representing a client. There are two types of withdrawal: mandatory and voluntary. Mandatory withdrawal occurs where a circumstance arises under which an attorney must terminate the representation, while voluntary withdrawal occurs where circumstances permit the attorney to terminate the representation at the attorney's election. Where litigation has been filed and an attorney is representing the client in court, permission of the court must usually be sought in support of an attorney's withdrawal.

Contents

Mandatory withdrawal

There are many circumstances which require that an attorney must withdraw from a case:

  1. The client fires the attorney.
  2. The attorney determines that he is not competent to continue representing the client in a matter.
  3. A conflict of interest arises under which the attorney's continued representation of multiple clients impairs the attorney's obligations to the individuals.
  4. The client insists upon advancing a frivolous claim.
  5. Continued representation would violate the rules of professional responsibility.
  6. The attorney is in a physical or emotional state that seriously impairs the attorney's ability to continue the representation.
  7. It is likely that the attorney will be called as a necessary witness as to a contested issue in the proceeding, and that testimony cannot be obtained elsewhere.
  8. The attorney discovers that the client is using the attorney's services to further a criminal act.

Voluntary withdrawal

An attorney may voluntarily terminate the attorney-client relationship at any time and without reason, if this will not have a material adverse effect on the interests of the client. Even if the withdrawal will be adverse to the client the attorney may still withdraw for a number of reasons:

  1. The client is engaged in illegal or fraudulent activity.
  2. The client fails to pay fees as agreed.
  3. The financial burden on the attorney of continuing the representation is too great.
  4. The client refuses to follow the advice of counsel, or engages in acts relating to the representation without informing the attorney or seeking the attorney's advice.
  5. The attorney is engaged with co-counsel of the client's choosing, and is unable to work with that co-counsel.

Rules governing withdrawal

Where the attorney withdraws from representation, he has a continuing duty to maintain the confidentiality of information provided by the client during the relationship, except to the extent that the attorney may need to reveal confidences in a lawsuit to recover unpaid fees owed. However, the attorney must refund any portion of the retainer or other fees paid that exceeds what the attorney has earned during the representation. The attorney must notify the client of the withdrawal prior to ceasing his work on the case, must make a reasonable effort to assist the client in obtaining new counsel, and must cooperate with that new counsel during the transition to the new representation. The attorney must also, on request, deliver the client's file to the client or the client's new counsel.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Barrister</span> Lawyer specialised in court representation in certain jurisdictions

A barrister is a type of lawyer in common law jurisdictions. Barristers mostly specialise in courtroom advocacy and litigation. Their tasks include taking cases in superior courts and tribunals, drafting legal pleadings, researching law and giving expert legal opinions.

<i>Miranda</i> warning Notification given by U.S. police to criminal suspects on their rights while in custody

In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection from self-incrimination; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials. These rights are often referred to as Miranda rights. The purpose of such notification is to preserve the admissibility of their statements made during custodial interrogation in later criminal proceedings. The idea came from law professor Yale Kamisar, who subsequently was dubbed "the father of Miranda."

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires U.S. states to provide attorneys to criminal defendants who are unable to afford their own. The case extended the right to counsel, which had been found under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to impose requirements on the federal government, by imposing those requirements upon the states as well.

A bar association is a professional association of lawyers as generally organized in countries following the Anglo-American types of jurisprudence. The word bar is derived from the old English/European custom of using a physical railing to separate the area in which court business is done from the viewing area for the general public.

A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, and serving one interest could involve working against another. Typically, this relates to situations in which the personal interest of an individual or organization might adversely affect a duty owed to make decisions for the benefit of a third party.

Attorney–client privilege or lawyer–client privilege is the name given to the common law concept of legal professional privilege in the United States. Attorney–client privilege is "[a] client's right to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications between the client and the attorney."

A real estate agent, referred to often as a Realtor and/or a real estate broker is a person who represents sellers or buyers of real estate or real property. While a broker may work independently, an agent usually works under a licensed broker to represent clients. Brokers and agents are licensed by the state to negotiate sales agreements and manage the documentation required for closing real estate transactions. Buyers and sellers are generally advised to consult a licensed real estate professional for a written definition of an individual state's laws of agency. Many states require written disclosures to be signed by all parties outlining the duties and obligations.

Legal aid is the provision of assistance to people who are unable to afford legal representation and access to the court system. Legal aid is regarded as central in providing access to justice by ensuring equality before the law, the right to counsel and the right to a fair trial. This article describes the development of legal aid and its principles, primarily as known in Europe, the Commonwealth of Nations and in the United States.

In United States law, ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) is a claim raised by a convicted criminal defendant asserting that the defendant's legal counsel performed so ineffectively that it deprived the defendant of the constitutional right guaranteed by the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Ineffectiveness claims may only be brought where the defendant had the right to counsel, ordinarily during the critical stages of a prosecution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Barristers in England and Wales</span> One of the two main categories of lawyer in England and Wales

Barristers in England and Wales are one of the two main categories of lawyer in England and Wales, the other being solicitors. Barristers have traditionally had the role of handling cases for representation in court, both defence and prosecution.

In criminal law, the right to counsel means a defendant has a legal right to have the assistance of counsel and, if the defendant cannot afford a lawyer, requires that the government appoint one or pay the defendant's legal expenses. The right to counsel is generally regarded as a constituent of the right to a fair trial. Historically, however, not all countries have always recognized the right to counsel. The right is often included in national constitutions. Of the 194 constitutions currently in force, 153 have language to this effect.

Legal malpractice is the term for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, or breach of contract by a lawyer during the provision of legal services that causes harm to a client.

The Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) operates under the delegated authority of the Washington Supreme Court to license the state's nearly 41,000 active and inactive lawyers and other legal professionals. In furtherance of its obligation to protect and serve the public, the WSBA regulates lawyers and other legal professionals and serves its members as a professional association. The WSBA's mission is to serve the public and the members of the Bar, to ensure the integrity of the legal profession, and to champion justice.

A Cumis counsel is "an attorney employed by a defendant in a lawsuit when there is a liability insurance policy supposedly covering the claim, but there is a conflict of interest between the insurance company and the insured defendant."

Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that criminal defense attorneys must advise noncitizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. The case extended the Supreme Court's prior decisions on criminal defendants' Sixth Amendment right to counsel to immigration consequences.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a court-appointed attorney filed a motion to withdraw from the appeal of a criminal case because of his belief that any grounds for appeal were frivolous.

The Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

The Alaska Bar Association is a mandatory bar association responsible for the Alaska Supreme Court and for the admission and discipline process of attorneys for the state of Alaska.

Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that when a state court makes a factual determination the federal courts must defer to its judgment so long as it is reasonable.

<i>Canadian National Railway Co v McKercher LLP</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canadian National Railway Co v McKercher LLP is a significant case of the Supreme Court of Canada that consolidated Canadian jurisprudence on conflicts of interest in the legal profession.