Colo. R. Prof'l. Cond. 1.16
RPC 1.16
COMMENT
[1] A lawyer should not accept representation in a matter unless it can be performed competently, promptly, without improper conflict of interest and to completion. Ordinarily, a representation in a matter is completed when the agreed-upon assistance has been concluded. See Rules 1.2(c) and 6.5. See also Rule 1.3, Comment [4]. Mandatory Withdrawal
[2] A lawyer ordinarily must decline or withdraw from representation if the client demands that the lawyer engage in conduct that is illegal or violates the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. The lawyer is not obliged to decline or withdraw simply because the client suggests such a course of conduct; a client may make such a suggestion in the hope that a lawyer will not be constrained by a professional obligation.
[3] When a lawyer has been appointed to represent a client, withdrawal ordinarily requires approval of the appointing authority. See also Rule 6.2. Similarly, court approval or notice to the court is often required by applicable law before a lawyer withdraws from pending litigation. Difficulty may be encountered if withdrawal is based on the client's demand that the lawyer engage in unprofessional conduct. The court may request an explanation for the withdrawal, while the lawyer may be bound to keep confidential the facts that would constitute such an explanation. The lawyer's statement that professional considerations require termination of the representation ordinarily should be accepted as sufficient. Lawyers should be mindful of their obligations to both clients and the court under Rules 1.6 and 3.3. Discharge
[4] A client has a right to discharge a lawyer at any time, with or without cause, subject to liability for payment for the lawyer's services. Where future dispute about the withdrawal may be anticipated, it may be advisable to prepare a written statement reciting the circumstances.
[5] Whether a client can discharge appointed counsel may depend on applicable law. A client seeking to do so should be given a full explanation of the consequences. These consequences may include a decision by the appointing authority that appointment of successor counsel is unjustified, thus requiring self-representation by the client.
[6] If the client has severely diminished capacity, the client may lack the legal capacity to discharge the lawyer, and in any event the discharge may be seriously adverse to the client's interests. The lawyer should make special effort to help the client consider the consequences and may take reasonably necessary protective action as provided in Rule 1.14. Permissive Withdrawal
[7] A lawyer may withdraw from representation in some circumstances. The lawyer has the option to withdraw if it can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the client's interests. Withdrawal is also justified if the client persists in a course of action that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent, for a lawyer is not required to be associated with such conduct even if the lawyer does not further it. Withdrawal is also permitted if the lawyer's services were misused in the past even if that would materially prejudice the client. The lawyer may also withdraw where the client insists on taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement.
[8] A lawyer may withdraw if the client refuses to abide by the terms of an agreement relating to the representation, such as an agreement concerning fees or court costs or an agreement limiting the objectives of the representation. Assisting the Client upon Withdrawal
[9] Even if the lawyer has been unfairly discharged by the client, a lawyer must take all reasonable steps to mitigate the consequences to the client. The lawyer may retain papers as security for a fee only to the extent permitted by law. See Rule 1.16(d).
ANNOTATION Law reviews. For article, "Am I My Brother's Keeper? Redefining the Attorney-Client Relationship", see 32 Colo. Law. 11 (April 2003). For article, "The Duty of Loyalty and Preparations to Compete", see 34 Colo. Law. 67 (November 2005). For article, "Ethics in Family Law and the New Rules of Professional Conduct", see 37 Colo. Law. 47 (October 2008). For article, "New Rule on Retaining Client Files--How to Avoid Potential Pitfalls", see 41 Colo. Law. 69 (June 2012). For article, "Repugnant Objectives", see 41 Colo. Law. 51 (December 2012). Annotator's note. Rule 1.16 is similar to Rule 1.16 as it existed prior to the 2007 repeal and readoption of the Colorado rules of professional conduct. Relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this rule. Attorney discharged without cause may not recover damages under a non-contingency contract for services not rendered before the discharge. It is important to balance the attorney-client relationship and the attorney's right to receive fair and adequate compensation. interests. Olsen & Brown v. City of Englewood, 889 P.2d 673 (Colo. 1995). The decision as to whether defense counsel should be permitted to withdraw lies within the sound discretion of the court. If the trial court has a reasonable basis for concluding that the attorney-client relationship has not deteriorated to the point at which counsel is unable to give effective assistance in the presentation of a defense, then the court is justified in refusing to appoint new counsel. People v. Rocha, 872 P.2d 1285 (Colo. App. 1993). Disagreement concerning the refusal of defense counsel to call certain witnesses is not sufficient per se to require the trial court to grant a motion to withdraw. People v. Rocha, 872 P.2d 1285 (Colo. App. 1993). Among the factors a trial court must consider in determining whether withdrawal is warranted is the possibility that any new counsel will be confronted with the same irreconcilable conflict. People v. Rocha, 872 P.2d 1285 (Colo. App. 1993). Public censure instead of private censure was appropriate where attorney failed to respond to discovery requests and motions for summary judgment and the findings of the board did not support the applicability of ABA Standard 9.32(i) as a mitigating factor since there was no medical evidence that attorney was affected by chemical dependency or that alcohol contributed to or caused the misconduct. People v. Brady, 923 P.2d 887 (Colo. 1996). Attorney's restitution agreement was neither an aggravating nor mitigating factor since the attorney did not propose or attempt any form of restitution until after a request for investigation had been filed with the office of disciplinary counsel. People v. Brady, 923 P.2d 887 (Colo. 1996). Attorney's argument that public discipline is not appropriate because it would stigmatize a recovering alcoholic was rejected since overriding concern in discipline proceedings is to protect the public through the enforcement of professional standards of conduct. People v. Brady, 923 P.2d 887 (Colo. 1996). Attorney's professional misconduct involving the improper collection of attorney's fees in six instances, and the failure to withdraw upon client's request in one instance justified 45-day suspension. People v. Peters, 849 P.2d 51 (Colo. 1993). An attorney is entitled only to compensation for the reasonable value of the services rendered if the attorney is employed under a fixed fee contract to render specific legal services and is discharged by the client without cause. The client was entitled to discharge the attorneys without cause and without incurring any further liability, other than payment for services rendered on a quantum meruit theory. Olsen & Brown v. City of Englewood, 867 P.2d 96 (Colo. App. 1993). Any contractual provision that constrains a client from exercising the right freely to discharge his or her attorney is unenforceable. A client has an unfettered right to discharge freely its attorney without incurring liability under ordinary breach of contract principles. Olsen & Brown v. City of Englewood, 867 P.2d 96 (Colo. App. 1993). Disbarment appropriate where attorney accepted fees from a number of clients prior to terminating her legal practice, failed to inform her clients of such termination, failed to refund clients' retainer fees, failed to place clients' funds in separate account, and gave clients' files to other lawyers without clients' consent. People v. Tucker, 904 P.2d 1321 (Colo. 1995). Previously disbarred attorney who violated this rule would be forced to pay restitution to clients as a condition of readmission. People v. Vigil, 945 P.2d 1385 (Colo. 1997). Conduct violating this rule, in conjunction with other disciplinary rules, sufficient to justify disbarment where the attorney continued to practice law while on suspension, repeatedly neglecting his clients and failing to take reasonable steps to protect clients' interests. People v. Fager, 938 P.2d 138 (Colo. 1997). Suspension for one year and one day appropriate where attorney violated section (d) by not returning or accounting for client funds held for emergencies after the clients fired the attorney and for negligently converting other client funds to the attorney's own use. People v. Johnson, 944 P.2d 524 (Colo. 1997). Suspension for three years, rather than disbarment, was appropriate where violation of this rule and others caused serious harm to attorney's clients, but mitigating factors were present, including no previous discipline in 14 years of practice, personal and emotional problems, and cooperation and demonstrated remorse in proceedings. People v. Henderson, 967 P.2d 1038 (Colo. 1998). Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other disciplinary rules is sufficient to justify public censure. People v. Williams, 936 P.2d 1289 (Colo. 1997); People v. Barr, 957 P.2d 1379 (Colo. 1998). Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other disciplinary rules is sufficient to justify suspension. People v. Crews, 901 P.2d 472 (Colo. 1995); People v. Kuntz, 908 P.2d 1110 (Colo. 1996); People v. Johnson, 946 P.2d 469 (Colo. 1997); People v. Rishel, 956 P.2d 542 (Colo. 1998); In re Corbin, 973 P.2d 1273 (Colo. 1999); People v. Staab, 287 P.3d 122 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2012). Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other disciplinary rules is sufficient to justify disbarment. People v. Damkar, 908 P.2d 1113 (Colo. 1996); People v. Jamrozek, 921 P.2d 725 (Colo. 1996); People v. Steinman, 930 P.2d 596 (Colo. 1997); People v. Wallace, 936 P.2d 1282 (Colo. 1997); People v. Mannix, 936 P.2d 1285 (Colo. 1997); People v. Madigan, 938 P.2d 1162 (Colo. 1997); People v. Holmes, 951 P.2d 477 (Colo. 1998); People v. Holmes, 955 P.2d 1012 (Colo. 1998); People v. Valley, 960 P.2d 141 (Colo. 1998); People v. Skaalerud, 963 P.2d 341 (Colo. 1998); People v. Rasure, 212 P.3d 973 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2009); People v. Sweetman, 218 P.3d 1123 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2008); People v. Edwards, 240 P.3d 1287 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2010); People v. Rozan, 277 P.3d 942 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2011); People v. Tolentino, 285 P.3d 340 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2012). Cases Decided Under Former DR 2-104. Law reviews. For formal opinion of the Colorado Bar Association Ethics Committee on Lawyer Advertising, Solicitation and Publicity, see 19 Colo. Law. 25 (1990). For formal opinion of the Colorado Bar Association Ethics Committee on Collaboration with Non-Lawyers in the Preparation and Marketing of Estate Planning Documents, see 19 Colo. Law. 1793 (1990).