Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 21STCV09417, Date: 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV09417    Hearing Date: February 16, 2023    Dept: 40

The instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel was brought by Defendant’s Counsel, Adam Michael Sacks, who seeks to withdraw from his representation of Defendant Carlos Maldonado Luna due to a breakdown in the client-attorney relationship.

Legal Standard

An attorney in an action may withdraw at any time before or after judgment or final determination upon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other. (CCP § 284(2)).  CRC Rule 3.1362 requires:

1. Notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel Civil form (MC-051));

2. A declaration stating in general terms, and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney client relationship, why a motion under CCP §284(2), is brought instead of filing a consent under CCP §284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel Civil form (MC-052));

3. Service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and

4. The proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel Civil form (MC-053)).

The motion should be denied if withdrawal would prejudice the client.  (Rules Prof. Conduct, Rule 3-700(A)(2); see also 1 Witkin Cal. Pro., Attorneys §72 (2008).)  The motion should also be denied if it will cause undue delay in the proceeding or cause injustice.  (Mandell v. Superior Court, (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. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1173.)  A breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is grounds for withdrawal.  (Estate of Falco (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014.) An attorney is not limited to withdrawing from a case for cause and may withdraw whenever withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client.  (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 914.)

  Motion

 The Motion procedurally conforms with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subdivisions (a), (c), (d), and (e), because Counsel provided: (1) Civil form MC-051 (Motion) on 1/3/23; (2) Civil form MC-052 (Declaration) on 1/3/23; (3) Civil form MC-053 (Proposed Order) on 1/3/23; and  (4) Proof of Service showing service of Forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053 by U.S. mail on 1/2/23. ¿

 Moreover, the reason given for withdrawal is valid. Here, Counsel states: “There has been an irretrievable breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. Defendant is not communicating with counsel, not taking the advice of counsel. Counsel’s inability to communicate with Defendant ethically requires an application for an order to withdraw as attorney for Defendant [sic] refuses to execute a substitution of attorney form requiring the filing of the instant Motion. No prejudice will be imparted upon any party by granting the instant request.” The Court finds these reasons to be sufficient.

 Finally, there is no showing that Defendant Maldonado Luna will suffer prejudice since Defendant Maldonado Luna did not oppose the Motion and trial is not set on this case until April 11, 2023.

  Conclusion