Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 19LBCV00434, Date: 2022-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19LBCV00434    Hearing Date: August 11, 2022    Dept: S27

On 2/17/22, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney form, pursuant to which Telleria, Telleria, & Levy, LLP commenced representing Plaintiff.  At this time, M. Anthony Jenkins of the firm seeks to be relieved as counsel, contending the parties’ relationship has broken down.

The motion is denied for two reasons.  First, Counsel contends he confirmed his client’s address by way of skip trace.  While skip trace is often used to locate a person for purposes of attempting service on the person, the Court is not comfortable having it used to confirm a person definitively lives at, or is receiving papers at, an address. 

Second, the case is scheduled for trial on 9/12/22, approximately one month after the hearing on this motion.  The FSC is on 9/06/22.  There is no statement, in the moving papers, showing that the breakdown in the relationship occurred recently, or that the motion could not have been filed earlier.  There was no attempt, by Plaintiff’s attorney, to move the trial date; notably, the case has been pending since 7/05/19, and the Court would not be inclined to continue the trial date. 

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. 

In light of the above, the motion is denied.  All currently scheduled dates remain on calendar.

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.