Lawyers may withdraw from representation for non-payment of the client, subject to court approval and specific facts and circumstances. Failure to pay fees may constitute an unreasonable financial burden or non-performance of an obligation. An appropriate warning to the customer is required. Counsel may want Gibbs v. Lappies, 828 F. Supp. 6 (D.N.H. 1993). The defense lawyer tried to withdraw two months before the trial because the insurance company had become insolvent and there was no prospect of the company being paid.
The court found that the insured or client had not breached any obligation to the law firm and that his interests would be prejudiced if the firm withdrew in the circumstances. The court rejected the withdrawal request. In State v. Emanuel, 139 N.H. 57 (1994), the Court of First Instance allowed the defence lawyer to withdraw six days before the trial, which was based solely on a dispute over fees. The court ruled that „a fee dispute may be sufficient just cause for a defense lawyer to withdraw from representation on the eve of the trial,” but a trial court must investigate the facts surrounding the dispute to determine the potential harm to the defendant. It should be noted that Emanuel is older than the adoption of Article 5(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that Emanuel may no longer be a useful precedent. See also Fidelity Nat`l Title Ins. Co. of New York v. Intercounty Nat`l Title Ins. Co., 310 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2002) (The trial court abused its discretion by refusing to authorize the withdrawal of Firm 4, which owed $470,000 in fees and costs). Withdrawal requests in this context are subject to the confidentiality obligations of Rule 1.6, which provides that a lawyer may disclose information only „to the extent reasonably necessary” to achieve any of the stated purposes. See In Re Gonzalez, 773 A.2d 1026 (D.C. 2001) (counsel reprimands the filing of a withdrawal request for non-payment of fees, in which counsel stated that the client had also made false statements to counsel); ABA Formal Op. 476 (2016, December 19). This topic is discussed in more detail in the second article in this series. Courts may also be more likely to allow withdrawal in cases where the attorney has gone to great lengths with little or no payment, and less likely to allow withdrawal in cases where the client has made large payments but is then short of funds. In accordance with Rule 1.16(c), a lawyer who wishes to withdraw must also comply with the applicable court regulations. For example, section 32(2) of the Supreme Court; Article 17 (d) and (g) of the Supreme Court; Code of Criminal Procedure 5(h)-j); General Rule 1.3(E) – (I) of the Circuit Court.
Rule 5(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that appointed lawyers who are required to resign due to a conflict of interest under Rule 1.6(a), 1.9(a) and (b) and/or 1.10(a) may do so by sending a notice of resignation to the court, unless the matter is within 20 days of the hearing. Rule 5(i) also provides that automatic withdrawal is not granted if the revocation is the termination of the relationship, non-payment of fees or any other conflict not expressly specified in the established rules. A court may ask a lawyer to continue to represent a client despite a material reason under Rule 1.16. This is the first in a series of shifts regarding ethical considerations when withdrawing from representation. This corner provides an overview of Rule 1.6 and addresses the issue of resignation when the client stops paying lawyers` bills and/or stops communicating with the lawyer. Future corners will address ethical issues related to resignation requests and some withdrawal considerations in the context of the transaction. (1) The withdrawal may take place without significant prejudice to the interests of the customer; Under Rule 1.16(a), lawyers are required to refuse to represent a client or resign if representation would result in a violation of the Code of Ethics or other laws; the lawyer`s physical or mental condition significantly impairs his or her ability to represent the client; or the lawyer was fired. The short answer is yes, subject to Rule 1.16 and all applicable judicial rules. Under Rule 1.16(b)(1), a lawyer may resign if the resignation can take place without significantly affecting the interests of the client.