Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 19LBCP00356, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19LBCP00356    Hearing Date: April 20, 2023    Dept: S27

Counsel for Defendants, Stacy John Sanchez, Stacy’s In Home Care, Inc., and Lilliana Juliano seeks to be relieved as counsel.  The motion is denied for several reasons. 

First, the declaration in support of the motion indicates Counsel seeks to be relieved because Defendants have not agreed to substitute Counsel out of the case.  This is not a reason for withdrawal.  This is a logistical hurdle to withdrawal, but not a reason for withdrawal in the first instance. 

Second, Counsel declares Defendants’ address has been confirmed because Counsel has “current knowledge of clients’ addresses.”  There is no statement of how Counsel has this knowledge.  The Code requires a specific statement of how the address has been confirmed, and simply stating that Counsel has knowledge is insufficient. 

Third, the motion is denied because it is set to be heard unreasonably close to the trial date.  The trial date in the case is 5/15/23, and the FSC is scheduled for 5/12/23, less than a month after the hearing on this motion.  The Court notes that the case has been pending since 2019, and that there is no statement, in the motion to be relieved, concerning why or how relief is necessary at the penultimate moment prior to trial.    

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.  Where withdrawal is not mandatory, an attorney normally must continue representation on the matter undertaken. The fact the client or matter proves unpleasant or unprofitable does not excuse attorney performance. The rules have been liberally construed to protect clients.  See Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 197; Chaleff v. Superior Court (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 721; Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.

 An attorney, either with the client's consent or the court's approval, may withdraw from a case when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client's interests.  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, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d at p. 197. 

Counsel is ordered to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.