Opinion
00 Civ. 6542 (LAK)(KNF)
June 28, 2002
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
David J. Hernandez, Esq., counsel to Aida Ortiz, a defendant in the above-captioned action, made an application to the Court, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 1.4 of the Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, that he be permitted to withdraw as counsel to defendant Ortiz. Local Civil Rule 1.4 provides the following:
An attorney who has appeared as attorney of record for a party may be relieved or displaced only by order of the court and may not withdraw from a case without leave of the court granted by order. Such an order may be granted only upon a showing by affidavit or otherwise of satisfactory reasons for withdrawal or displacement and the posture of the case, including its position, if any, on the calendar.
The failure of a client to cooperate with counsel in the prosecution or defense of an action by, among other things, failing to communicate with counsel, has been found to be an adequate basis upon which to permit an attorney to be released from the obligation of continuing to represent the attorney's client. Furthermore, where an irreconcilable conflict has emerged between an attorney and the attorney's client, that too may support a determination by a court to allow withdrawal by the attorney.See Griffin v. Norweigan Cruise Line, Limited, No. 01 Civ. 9755, 2002 WL 500375, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. April 3, 2002).
In accordance with Disciplinary Rule 2-112(C)(1)(f) of the Code of Professional Responsibility, an attorney may also seek leave to withdraw in circumstances where a client "deliberately disregards an agreement or obligation to the lawyer as to expenses or fees." See Spadola v. New York City Transit Authority, No. 00 Civ. 3262, 2002 WL 59423, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2002).
In an affidavit submitted to the Court, in connection with the instant application to withdraw as counsel, Mr. Hernandez indicated that defendant Ortiz had refused to cooperate with him in preparing her defense to the claims made against her in this action. He also indicated that his client had not fulfilled her financial obligations to him by paying fully for the professional services that he has rendered to her to date. At a pretrial conference held on June 27, 2002, he explained in greater detail the circumstances under which his relationship with his client has deteriorated such that he no longer is able to remain in an attorney-client relationship with her.
For her part, at the conference and in a writing submitted to the Court, Ms. Ortiz explained that she no longer had confidence in the ability of Mr. Hernandez to continue to represent her fully and effectively in this action. In addition, she explained that she had exhausted her financial resources and could no longer afford to pay Mr. Hernandez for his professional services. Counsel to the remaining parties to the action were present at the pretrial conference and expressed no opposition to the application made by Mr. Hernandez that he be released from the obligation of continuing to represent defendant Ortiz.
Based upon the written submissions made by Mr. Hernandez and his client, defendant Ortiz, and the statements made in open court which demonstrate that irreconcilable differences exist between defendant Ortiz and her counsel, and that her economic circumstances prohibit her from continuing to pay her counsel's fees, the Court finds that satisfactory reasons exist to permit Mr. Hernandez to withdraw as counsel of record to defendant Ortiz. Therefore, the application made, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 1.4, is granted.
During the pretrial conference referenced above, Mr. Hernandez indicated that he was prepared to submit a response on behalf of defendant Ortiz to an outstanding motion made by plaintiff that certain counterclaims asserted by defendant Ortiz be dismissed. He indicated to the Court that responsive papers could be served and filed on or before July 11, 2002. Given the posture of the case, and the need to ensure that a just result will attend, it was agreed that Mr. Hernandez would undertake responsibility for submitting a response to the motion on Ms. Ortiz's behalf. Once that exercise is completed, Mr. Hernandez will have no further obligation to render professional services to defendant Ortiz in connection with the instant action.