‼️
Prof Responsibility • Withdrawal
PR#088
Legal Definition
Withdrawal is mandatory or representation must be declined if: (1) the representation will result in a violation of the rules of professional conduct or other law; (2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition renders it unreasonably difficult to carry out the employment effectively; (3) the lawyer knows or should know the client is acting without probable cause and to harass or maliciously injure another person; or (4) the lawyer is discharged.
Plain English Explanation
Like the ABA, California also has four situations where withdrawal is mandatory, but only the first three are the same as the ABA:
(1) The representation would result in breaking the rules of professional conduct or other laws. For example, if a potential client asks you to help them commit fraud or engage in illegal activities, you cannot take on that representation. Your ethical duties as a lawyer prohibit you from assisting in unlawful conduct.
(2) Your physical or mental condition renders it unreasonably difficult to represent the client effectively. This could occur if you develop a serious illness or disability that prevents you from adequately handling the client's matter. The key is whether your condition makes it unreasonably difficult to provide competent representation.
(3) A lawyer must withdraw if they are fired by the client.
The additional mandatory withdrawal situation in California is:
(4) A lawyer must withdraw if they know or reasonably should know that the client is pursuing a case without probable cause and simply to harass or maliciously injure someone. An example would be a client filing repeated frivolous lawsuits against a neighbor they dislike, with no legal merit.
(1) The representation would result in breaking the rules of professional conduct or other laws. For example, if a potential client asks you to help them commit fraud or engage in illegal activities, you cannot take on that representation. Your ethical duties as a lawyer prohibit you from assisting in unlawful conduct.
(2) Your physical or mental condition renders it unreasonably difficult to represent the client effectively. This could occur if you develop a serious illness or disability that prevents you from adequately handling the client's matter. The key is whether your condition makes it unreasonably difficult to provide competent representation.
(3) A lawyer must withdraw if they are fired by the client.
The additional mandatory withdrawal situation in California is:
(4) A lawyer must withdraw if they know or reasonably should know that the client is pursuing a case without probable cause and simply to harass or maliciously injure someone. An example would be a client filing repeated frivolous lawsuits against a neighbor they dislike, with no legal merit.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob is representing Sam in a defamation lawsuit against Sam's former employer. Initially, the case seems legitimate, with Sam claiming he was fired due to false accusations. However, as the case progresses, Bob discovers evidence that Sam's allegations are completely unfounded. Despite this, Sam insists on continuing the lawsuit, admitting to Bob that he just wants to "make the company suffer" for firing him, even if he can't win the case. Result: Bob has a mandatory duty to withdraw from representing Sam. This situation clearly falls under the California-specific criterion, where the lawyer knows the client is acting without probable cause and to maliciously injure another person. Bob now knows that Sam's lawsuit lacks merit and is being pursued solely to harm his former employer. Continuing to represent Sam would make Bob complicit in abusing the legal system and potentially harming an innocent party.
Hypo 2: Sam hires Bob to file a series of small claims lawsuits against various local businesses. Sam claims each business has discriminated against him, but provides vague and inconsistent details about these alleged incidents. When Bob presses for more information, Sam brushes off his concerns, saying, "It doesn't matter if it's true. These suits will teach them to be more careful about how they treat customers." Bob notices that Sam seems to target only businesses owned by a particular ethnic group. Result: Bob has a mandatory duty to withdraw from representing Sam. This scenario aligns with the California-specific criterion for mandatory withdrawal. While Bob may not have absolute proof, he should know based on the circumstances that Sam is acting without probable cause. The pattern of targeting specific businesses, the lack of concrete evidence, and Sam's dismissive attitude about the truth all indicate that these lawsuits are being filed to harass and potentially injure business owners rather than to address legitimate grievances. By continuing to represent Sam, Bob would be facilitating discriminatory harassment through the legal system, which goes against his professional ethical obligations.
Hypo 2: Sam hires Bob to file a series of small claims lawsuits against various local businesses. Sam claims each business has discriminated against him, but provides vague and inconsistent details about these alleged incidents. When Bob presses for more information, Sam brushes off his concerns, saying, "It doesn't matter if it's true. These suits will teach them to be more careful about how they treat customers." Bob notices that Sam seems to target only businesses owned by a particular ethnic group. Result: Bob has a mandatory duty to withdraw from representing Sam. This scenario aligns with the California-specific criterion for mandatory withdrawal. While Bob may not have absolute proof, he should know based on the circumstances that Sam is acting without probable cause. The pattern of targeting specific businesses, the lack of concrete evidence, and Sam's dismissive attitude about the truth all indicate that these lawsuits are being filed to harass and potentially injure business owners rather than to address legitimate grievances. By continuing to represent Sam, Bob would be facilitating discriminatory harassment through the legal system, which goes against his professional ethical obligations.
Visual Aids
Related Concepts
In California, when may an attorney choose to withdraw from representing a client (permissive withdraw)?
What is the procedure an attorney must follow to permissively withdrawal from representing a client?
When does a lawyer have a mandatory Duty to Withdrawal or decline representation?
When may an attorney choose to withdraw from representing a client (permissive withdraw)?
