Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 14-00745712, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling

1) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record

2) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record

3) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record

4) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record

The Motions of Robert Bare (“Counsel”), counsel of record for Defendants Tribute Management, Inc., The Student Loan Group, D.O.R.M. Group, Inc. and Heritage Asset Management (collectively, “Defendants”), to be relieved as counsel for each of these Defendants is continued to June 26, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. in Department C31, for counsel to cure the defects in his applications noted below.

The first problem is that Counsel has not filed a proof of service showing the moving papers were served on Plaintiff.  Counsel’s proof of service shows that all Defendants were served by U.S. mail, return receipt requested on 1/10/23.  [ROA #544.]  But there is no proof of service on Plaintiff.

Second, counsel has provided no information, even within the bounds of not violating the attorney-client privilege, about the situation giving rise to his Motions.  He simply states that the facts giving rise to the Motions are protected by the attorney-client privilege.  But a statement as general as “conflict of interest,” “breakdown of the attorney-client relationship,” or “failure to communicate” is possible without violating the privilege and would be sufficient to support a request to be relieved.  Indeed, some information – even in general terms – of the reason for withdrawal is necessary.

Although an attorney is not permitted to disclose confidential information in connection with a withdrawal motion, the motion must be brought in “good faith.” See Leversen v. Sup.Ct. (People) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 530, 539.  Without even a general description of the reason for withdrawal, the Court has no information from which it could make a finding that the request to withdraw is made in good faith. 

Counsel has offered to provide information to the Court in camera, but (1) a general statement of reason for withdrawal is sufficient without the need for an in camera proceeding; and (2) even in an in camera proceeding, Counsel still could not disclose attorney-client privileged information.  See Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide, Professional Responsibility, ¶¶ 10:98.1-.2.

Finally, Counsel must provide a fully completed proposed order for the Court’s signature, with all the necessary information provided.

Counsel is to give notice of this ruling and the continued hearing to all defendants as well as Plaintiff.