Case Number: BC694096 Hearing Date: August 22, 2019 Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

SUSAN ROTHMAN,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

LACMTA, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC694096

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

August 22, 2019

Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Stephanie Folan moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff, contending there has been a breakdown in communication that prohibits further representation. Counsel declares she served the moving papers on Plaintiff at an unconfirmed address.

The motion is denied because it is set to be heard unreasonably close to the trial date. An OSC re: dismissal in the case is scheduled for 8/22/19, 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.

The Court is also concerned with Counsel’s attempts to serve her client. She declares she served her client via certified mail, return receipt requested. It is not clear whether the client signed for the package or not. If the client did not, the Court would require additional efforts to locate the client, such as calling, texting, e-mailing, contacting family members, and/or using skip tracing services, prior to granting the motion.

Finally, the Court notes that Counsel declares withdrawal is mandatory under Rule 3-700(B)(1). This section provides:

A member representing a client before a tribunal shall withdraw from employment with the permission of the tribunal, if required by its rules, and a member representing a client in other matters shall withdraw from employment, if:

(1) The member knows or should know that the client is bringing an action, conducting a defense, asserting a position in litigation, or taking an appeal, without probable cause and for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person; or

If Counsel can adequately articulate, in camera, why withdrawal is mandatory under this section, the Court will continue the OSC re: dismissal and will permit Counsel to re-file the motion and properly serve the moving papers on Plaintiff.

Counsel is ordered to give notice.