Case Number: BC527709    Hearing Date: October 06, 2014    Dept: 34

Moving Party: H. Michael Soroy, Law Office of H. Michael Soroy, counsel of record for defendant LM Brands, LLC.

Resp. Party: None

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:

This motion to be relieved by counsel is unopposed, and defendant’s counsel has certainly presented enough information to convince the Court that the attorney-client relationship is broken down. Nonetheless, the Court is concerned that trial is scheduled to commence only 18 days after the hearing on this motion to be relieved, and there has been no indication to the Court that either party is asking to continue the trial. The Court is also aware that defendant, being an LLC, must be represented by counsel and cannot appear in pro per. Therefore, the Court is concerned about the effect on the trial if the Court were to grant this motion to be relieved.

The Court is happy to hear from any and all parties on this matter at the hearing on October 6.

BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff commenced this action on 11/14/13 against defendant for: (1) breach of contract; (2) anticipatory breach; (3) unjust enrichment; and (4) services rendered. No motions have been filed or ruled upon in this action. Trial is currently set for 10/24/14.

ANALYSIS:
An attorney moving to be relieved as counsel under California Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) must meet the requirements set out in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. To comply with rule 3.1362, the moving party must submit the following forms: (1) Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; (2) Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; and (3) Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a), (c), (e).) The moving party must serve the aforementioned forms on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) Further, when the client is served by mail, the attorney’s declaration must show that the client’s address was confirmed within the last 30 days and how it was confirmed. (Ibid.)

Counsel submits a notice of motion and motion and a supporting declaration. Proof of service on plaintiff’s counsel and defendant is provided as to these documents. However, counsel fails to provide a proposed order.

The attorney in an action may be relieved at any time before or after judgment or final determination either upon consent of both client and attorney, or upon order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 284.) A motion to be relieved as counsel under Code Civ. Proc., section 284, subd. (2) must comply with the requirements set forth in Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. Specifically, the accompanying declaration “must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1).” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(c).)

Under California Rules of Professional Conduct, 3-700(C), “[i]f rule 3 700(B) [mandatory withdrawal] is not applicable, a member may not request permission to withdraw in matters pending before a tribunal, and may not withdraw in other matters, unless such request or such withdrawal is because: (1) The client . . . (d) by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively.”

Even if all of the requirements are met, “the court has discretion to deny an attorney’s request to withdraw where such withdrawal would work an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding.” (Mandell v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4.)

Counsel declares that communication between him and defendant has broken down and has essentially ceased. Counsel declares that in recent months defendant has repeatedly questioned the manner in which counsel has been handling the case and defendant has sought to impose its own unrealistic strategy. Defendant has expressed that it has “well founded concerns regarding how the case is being handled.” This is sufficient to establish that defendant has rendered it unreasonably difficult for counsel to represent defendant effectively.

Weighing against granting the motion is the fact that trial is set just 18 days after the hearing date for this motion, and it is unclear if the trial will need to be continued as a result of this motion. The Court also notes that counsel has been aware of these problems for at least a month prior to bringing this motion (See counsel’s declaration stating that client had informed attorney “in the last four weeks that it has ‘well founded concerns regarding how the case is being handled.’”) Nonetheless, the motion is unopposed.

The Court will hear from the parties on this matter at the hearing.