Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV44187, Date: 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44187    Hearing Date: September 14, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Steven Smith’s (“Plaintiff”) attorney of record, Timothy Mitchell of Karns & Karns, LLP (“Counsel”), has filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, contending relief is necessary because Plaintiff and Counsel have a difference of opinion regarding how this litigation should be pursued, which has caused a conflict between Plaintiff and Counsel that makes it impossible for Counsel to represent Plaintiff.  Counsel declares it served the moving papers on Plaintiff via mail at Plaintiff’s last known address.  Counsel has filed proof of service on Plaintiff and Defendant. 

No opposition has been filed to the motion.  However, the Court notes that trial in this matter is currently set for October 31, 2022, which is less than two months after the instant hearing. 

Unlike their clients, attorneys do not have an absolute right to withdraw from representation at any time with or without cause. Even where grounds for termination exist, attorneys seeking to withdraw must comply with the procedures set forth in California Rule of Professional Conduct (CRPC) 3.700 and are subject to discipline for failure to do so.  CRPC 3.700(B) lists various grounds for mandatory withdrawal, none of which are asserted here.

An attorney's right to terminate the attorney-client relationship and withdraw from a case is not absolute. (See Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 197; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.)  The decision whether to grant or deny an application for withdrawal is within the court's discretion, and it does not abuse that discretion by denying the application on the ground that the attorney's withdrawal would work injustice upon a third party. (Hodcarriers, Bldg. and Common Laborers Local Union No. 89 v. Miller (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 391; Heple v. Kluge (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 461.)

The rules have been liberally construed to protect clients.  (Vann v. Shilleh, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d 192; Chaleff v. Superior Court (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 721; Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)  An attorney, either with client's consent or court's approval, may withdraw from case when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to client's interests; however, sn attorney “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), and complying with applicable laws and rules.”  (CRPC 3.700(A)(2).)  A lawyer violates his or her ethical mandate by abandoning a client (Pineda v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 753, 758 759), or by withdrawing at a critical point and thereby prejudicing the client’s case.  (CRPC 3.700(A)(2); Vann v. Shilleh, supra.)

Given that trial in this action is set to commence in just over one month, Plaintiff will be prejudiced if Counsel is permitted to withdraw.  Absent a mandatory ground for relief, the motion is denied.

However, if at the hearing on this motion, the parties agree to a continuance of trial, the Court may consider a request from Plaintiff to continue the trial and to modify this tentative decision accordingly.  If this is the case, Counsel must be prepared to discuss what the TLO search involved in confirming Plaintiff’s address as current. 

Moving Counsel is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 14^th day of September 2022