Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 24STCV01745, Date: 2024-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV01745    Hearing Date: August 14, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion to be Relieved as Attorney of Record.

This is a legal malpractice case filed by Plaintiff Richard Pallack against Defendants McCune Law Group, Richard D. McCunn, and Joshua A. Genzuk. Plaintiff has not yet served any defendant.  Counsel for Plaintiff has filed a motion to be relieved as counsel.

“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.

Here, the form notice, declaration, proposed order, and proof of service sufficiently comply with the requirements for a motion to be relieved as counsel. See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.

Further, moving counsel’s declaration shows a cognizable ground for withdrawal: client conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively. (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16(b)(4).) Plaintiff’s opposition argues that relieving his attorney will cause him prejudice, but the Court disagrees. The case is not even at issue yet and the Court has not even set a trial date. Plaintiff therefore has ample time to obtain new counsel. Moreover, Plaintiff’s claim that he engaged another attorney to attend the last CMC to see if moving counsel would appear makes no sense and does nothing to address moving counsel’s declaration setting forth sufficient reasons for withdrawal. Finally, Plaintiff’s request for a stay of the case is improper in a motion to be relieved and, in any event, no cognizable grounds for a stay appear in the opposition.

Therefore, the motion is granted, and the Court will sign the order submitted by counsel. The Court will continue the CMC for 90 days to a date that works with Plaintiff’s schedule.