Lawzilla Additional Information: Lawzilla believes the tentative ruling was not adopted and instead the motion was granted.

Case Number: BC603306 Hearing Date: October 17, 2019 Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

JESSE JONES,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

Case No.: BC603306

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

October 17, 2019

Plaintiff, Jesse Jones filed this action against Defendant, LACMTA, City of LA, and County of LA for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiff filed the complaint on 12/02/15. On 10/02/17, Plaintiff dismissed the City. On 7/05/18, Plaintiff dismissed the County. On 7/15/19, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case.

On 9/20/19, Plaintiff’s attorney filed this motion to be relieved as counsel, contending a breakdown in communication necessitates withdrawal. The hearing on this motion is set for 10/17/91. There is an OSC re: dismissal due to settlement on calendar on 10/18/19, the day 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.

In light of the OSC re: dismissal, on calendar the day after the hearing on this motion, the Court is concerned that withdrawal will unduly prejudice Plaintiff. The motion to be relieved is therefore denied. Counsel is ordered to give notice.