Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 22LBCV00158, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22LBCV00158    Hearing Date: January 5, 2023    Dept: S27

1.     Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Samuel J. St. Romain, moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff, Jesilux Associates, LP.  Counsel contends there has been a breakdown in communication that prohibits further representation. 

The motion is denied because it is set to be heard unreasonably close to the trial date.  The trial date in the case is 1/09/23, and the FSC is scheduled for 1/05/23, the same day as the hearing on this motion. 

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. 

Additionally, the Court is concerned about Counsel’s declaration concerning confirming Plaintiff’s address.  Counsel declares he has “on-going correspondence with client representative,” but does not state whom or what type of correspondence or whether the correspondence has specifically concerned Plaintiff’s address. 

2.     FSC

The parties are reminded that the FSC is scheduled today, concurrently with the hearing on the above motion.