Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 22LBCV00169, Date: 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22LBCV00169    Hearing Date: March 14, 2023    Dept: S27

Defendants’ attorney seeks to be relieved as counsel, contending communication has broken down with his clients such that further representation is not possible.  The motion is denied due to Counsel’s failure to adequately detail efforts to confirm Defendants’ address.  Counsel declares he confirmed Defendants’ address via a Lexis Nexis public records search.  The Court is aware that public records are not always updated, which is why actual address confirmation is required prior to granting a motion based on an attorney’s checking of box 3(b)(1) on the judicial council form.  Notably, box 3(b)(2)(d) is the box should be checked when only a public records search was conducted in an attempt to locate a client, and when that box is checked, other safeguards must be in place, including serving the moving papers on the Clerk of the Court.

The motion is also denied because the motion is set to be heard unreasonably close to the trial date.  Trial in this action is scheduled for 4/10/23, less than a month after 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. 

Notably, Plaintiffs’ attorney attempted to file a Notice of Settlement of entire case on 2/24/23.  The notice was rejected because it was filed under the wrong case number.  The Court is hopeful, however, that the notice means Defense Counsel has had communication with Defendants such that either this motion is no longer necessary or Counsel has properly confirmed the address and can file a future motion with proper address confirmation. 

Defense 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 the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.