Case Number: BC658282 Hearing Date: November 28, 2018 Dept: 3

SARAH POINTON,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

10960 WILSHIRE, LLC, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC658282

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

November 28, 2018

Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Nelson & Natale, LLP has filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, contending relief is necessary because a “conflict of interest” has arisen between Plaintiff and Counsel, such that further representation is precluded. Counsel indicates Plaintiff has retained Sherman Law Group to pursue a legal malpractice claim against Counsel.

Plaintiff opposes the motion, noting that an MSJ hearing is coming up on 1/18/19 (rescheduled from 12/31/18). Plaintiff indicates she has not filed a malpractice lawsuit, and needs Counsel to represent her in connection with the summary judgment motion. She also notes that Counsel attempted to serve her with the moving papers by serving Sherman and by serving Plaintiff at an address purportedly confirmed by a phone call to Sherman.

The motion is denied. 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.) CRPC 3.700 lists various grounds for mandatory withdrawal, none of which are present here.

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 client’s consent or court’s approval, may withdraw from case when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to 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 v. Shilleh, supra.)

An attorney’s right to terminate the attorney-client relationship and withdraw from a case is not absolute. (Vann v. Shilleh, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d 192; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.) Having undertaken to represent a client, an attorney must continue doing so until the attorney is released by the client or by the court, or when ethical considerations mandate. An attorney must withdraw from representing a client if the attorney knows or should know that the client is bringing a legal 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 that continued employment will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or of the State Bar Act, or the attorney’s mental or physical condition renders it unreasonably difficult to carry out the employment effectively. (Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 3-700(B).)

The decision whether to grant or deny an application for withdrawal is within the court’s discretion, and it does not abuse that discretion by denying the application on the ground that the attorney’s withdrawal would work injustice upon a third party. (Hodcarriers, Bldg. and Common Laborers Local Union No. 89 v. Miller (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 391; Heple v. Kluge (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 461.)

Plaintiff herein adequately showed that a motion for summary judgment is pending, and she will be prejudiced if Counsel is permitted to withdraw. Absent a mandatory ground for relief, the motion is denied.

Counsel is ordered to give notice.