Opinion
Civil Action No. 02-CV-09526.
October 13, 2004
MEMORANDUM ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2004, upon consideration of: the Renewed Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Attorneys for Defendants King Media, Inc. and Triad Marketing, Inc. (the "Defendants") (Docket No. 83), filed by Fineman Krekstein Harris, P.C. (the "Fineman firm"); the telephonic conference held (pursuant to notice) in my Chambers on September 21, 2004, attended by attorneys from the Fineman firm, Defendants (by telephone participation as requested by Defendants' executives) and Ronald T. Nagle, attorney for Plaintiffs; and the letter from Defendants, dated October 4, 2004, addressed to this Court in response to the arguments by the Fineman firm in support of its Renewed Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Attorneys for Defendants, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Renewed Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Attorneys for Defendants is GRANTED.
Under Pennsylvania law, a client may terminate the relationship with her lawyer at any time; however, the lawyer may only withdraw from the representation "for reasonable cause and upon reasonable notice."Novinger v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours Co., Inc., 809 F.2d 212, 218 (3d Cir. 1987) (citing Spector v. Greenstein, 85 Pa. Super. 177 (1925)). Upon a petition by an attorney to withdraw from representation of a client, the Court must assess the request pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b) and the Court's Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1(c). Taylor v. Stewart, 20 F. Supp. 2d 882, 883 (E.D. Pa. 1998). The Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct are applicable in this Court pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.6 (Rule IV). According to Local Rule 5.1(c), a court must weigh four factors in deciding whether withdrawal is appropriate:
(1) the reason for which withdrawal is sought; (2) whether withdrawal will prejudice the parties; (3) whether withdrawal will interfere with the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the action.
Additionally, the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16(b), provide that a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if:
withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client, or if:
* * *
(4) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;
(5) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or
(6) other good cause for withdrawal exists.
It is clear to the Court, after reviewing the relevant submissions and weighing their arguments, that good cause exists pursuant to the criteria established by both Local Rule 5.1(c) and Pa. Rule 1.16(b) to permit withdrawal of the Fineman firm from representation of Defendants in this case. Specifically, Defendants and the Fineman firm agree that 1) Defendants have been billed but refuse to pay a substantial bill for services rendered in this case and 2) Defendants have and remain extremely critical of the services performed by the Fineman firm in connection with another engagement. As a result, and as candidly admitted by the Fineman firm's representatives, there exists an irretrievable breakdown in the relationship between the Fineman firm and Defendants.See Wolgin v. Smith, 1996 WL 482943, at *2 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 21, 1996).
Both in the notice setting the conference and at the start of the conference itself, the Court encouraged Defendants to secure counsel to assist Defendants in connection with the proceedings relating to the withdrawal petition. Defendants expressly declined to do so, although they acknowledged that at least two other law firms currently represented them in other litigation pending in this district court and in California.
Mere differences of opinion between an attorney and the client are not compelling reasons for withdrawal. Hargrove v. Philadelphia, 1995 WL 550441, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 15, 1995). However, the "development of an antagonistic relationship between lawyer and client is good cause for withdrawal." See Wolgin, 1996 WL 482943, at *4 (citing the ABA/BNA Lawyers' Manual on Profession Conduct, 31:1105-06) In the present matter, the Court finds, based on the written submissions on these issues and both the tenor of and information communicated during the hearing held in Chambers on September 21, 2004, that the disputes between the Fineman firm and Defendants have become "antagonistic" and are much more serious and fundamental than a minor difference of opinion or modest disagreement. See id. "Justice will not be served in this contested litigation by forcing the continuation of a lawyer/client relationship characterized by hostility and acrimony." Id. Given the level of disagreement between the lawyers and their clients at this point, to force the lawyers' continued service would implicate too great an opportunity for creation of a conflict of interest between the lawyers and the clients in violation of Rule 1.7(b) of the Professional Conduct rules. Furthermore, an attorney has complied with Rule 1.16(b) and will not be found to have violated his obligations to his client where he has "conscientiously represented his client" and neither leaves the client without time to prepare the case for trial nor without the ability to obtain new counsel to prepare for trial.See Commonwealth v. Roman, 549 A.2d 1320, 1321 (Pa.Super.Ct. 1988).
Therefore, without commenting upon either the billing dispute or the accusations of unsatisfactory performance, because the Court finds that 1) the Fineman firm has conscientiously represented Defendants in this case, 2) detrimental animosity exists between Defendants and the Fineman firm and 3) as the Court indicated to the parties at the conference, as a result of the recent reassignment of this case, there now is a reasonable timetable for substitute counsel to be selected and to prepare for trial, the Court does not believe withdrawal of the Fineman firm will unduly delay the prosecution of this case nor will it materially prejudice Defendants. See Local Rule 5.1(c), supra; Pa. Rule 1.16(b), supra; Roman, 549 A.2d at 1321; and Wolgin, 1996 WL 482943, at *4.
The Court is aware of Defendants' desire to have papers filed seeking a transfer of this case for consolidation with the pending California litigation among the same parties in which trial is scheduled to take place in the near future. Because Defendants disclosed their professional relationship with at least two other law firms (one of which is located in this district) familiar with the disputes in this litigation, the Court believes Defendants can secure appropriate professional assistance with such a motion, the merits of which the Court is not now addressing. Nevertheless, nothing in this Order precludes Defendants and the Fineman firm from agreeing upon terms under which the Fineman firm would or could submit promptly such a motion on Defendants' behalf.
For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Renewed Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Attorneys for Defendants is GRANTED.