Summary
reversing lower court order denying motion for leave to withdraw because there was sufficient evidence to conclude client rendered it unreasonably difficult for counsel to carry out employment effectively, including by making verbal threats against the firm
Summary of this case from In re WienerOpinion
November 10, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.).
We find that the record contains sufficient evidence to conclude that defendant Cusumano rendered it unreasonably difficult for appellant to carry out its employment effectively (see, Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-110 [C] [1] [a], [d] [ 22 NYCRR 1200.15 (c) (1) (i), (iv)]) by continually questioning Jaffe and Asher's work and blaming it for adverse decisions, making verbal threats against the firm, insisting that Jaffe and Asher pursue legal theories and arguments at trial directly contrary to law and counsel's professional judgment, and in short, exhibiting a total lack of trust and confidence in appellant.
While appellant's collection of $50,000 in legal fees in a two year period may appear excessive, it was improper for the IAS Court to require Jaffe and Asher to justify its fee at the hearing on its motion to withdraw, since the motivating factor for such motion was not only alleged nonpayment of the remainder of its claimed fees, but the substantial grounds listed above. The appellant's retaining lien, however, is denied, and the matter of an appropriate fee due, if any, is remanded to the Supreme Court for a hearing in accordance with its procedures, at which hearing the reasonableness of such fees can be explored.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.