Abstract

Model Rule 1.3 requires a lawyer to carry a matter through to completion unless withdrawal is permitted or required by Model Rule 1.16. Model Rule 1.16(b)(1) permits withdrawal if “withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client.” Withdrawal from an active matter would not be permissible under that provision if replacing the lawyer would result in a material adverse effect on the representation, for example, by delay of the matter, extra expense to the client, or difficulty in completing the matter. Where court approval is required, a lawyer may not withdraw until that has been obtained. Even if a client has no active matters, a lawyer cannot with-draw from representing that client if the lawyer is bound by an agreement to remain available to the client for future representations. If a lawyer-client relationship continues without any active matters, and without any express or implied agreement to remain available for future representations, Model Rule 1.16(b)(1) permits the lawyer to withdraw, even if the purpose is to undertake a representation adverse to that client.

Continue reading The “Hot Potato” Doctrine and the Model Rules of Professional Conduct: The Limits of a Lawyer’s Duty of Loyalty 

Subscribe to GJLE