Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: BS160519, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BS160519    Hearing Date: July 20, 2023    Dept: 82

TENTATIVE RULING:

Counsel Steven Trolard’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for petitioner Navarro C. Stafford, M.D. is GRANTED.

Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(4) allows a lawyer to withdraw from representing a client if “the client by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively.” Counsel declares that petitioner is not responding to letters, emails, and phone calls regarding resuming the peer review process. (Trolard Motion Decl. ¶ 2.2; Trolard Reply Decl. ¶¶ 8-10 & Exs. A, B; See Stafford v. Attending Staff Assn. of LAC + USC Medical Center (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 629, 634 [affirming granting of petition for writ of mandate where petitioner sought order to complete peer review process].) Petitioner responds that he is not one to ignore correspondences and that he has not received notices from counsel. (Stafford Decl. ¶ 8.)

Regardless of whether petitioner is ignoring letters from counsel, Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(8) allows a lawyer to withdraw from representing a client if “the lawyer’s mental or physical condition renders it difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively.” Here, counsel declares that he is prevented from continued representation in this matter because he must care for his wife who has undergone major cancer surgery. (Trolard Motion Decl. ¶ 2.2; Trolard Reply Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3.) Counsel declares that he is his wife’s only caregiver. (Trolard Reply Decl. ¶ 3.) The stress of the situation has taken a toll on counsel’s health and counsel has suspended his business to take care of these health issues. (Id. ¶ 3.)

Counsel sufficiently establishes that he is unable to devote the effort to which petitioner is entitled. (Id. ¶ 16.) Petitioner contends that counsel is contractually obligated to handle the matter in its entirety. (Stafford Decl. ¶¶ 5, 10.) However, counsel states that he is representing petitioner on an hourly fee basis, not a fixed fee basis. (Trolard Reply Decl. ¶¶ 17, 20.) It therefore appears that counsel is entitled to withdraw from representation upon granting of a motion filed pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1362.

Petitioner would not be unduly prejudiced with the withdrawal of counsel because the peer review process has not resumed. (Trolard Motion Decl. ¶ 2.) Petitioner seeks to force counsel to continue to represent him because counsel is a good attorney. (Stafford Decl. ¶ 10.) However, it is unclear why petitioner would want continued representation from someone who insists that he is unable to provide quality legal representation. (Trolard Reply Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4, 9, 16.) 

The motion is GRANTED, and the Court will sign the proposed order. Counsel will be relieved effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order upon the client.