- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Yes. Unless it's somehow making it impossible to provide competent representation, RPC 1.16 applies.Is there anything in lawyer ethics that says you should continue to represent your client in the face of being personally harassed by mongoloid redditors who hate your client?
Rule 1.16: Declining or Terminating Representation
Client-Lawyer Relationship
(a) A lawyer shall inquire into and assess the facts and circumstances of each representation to determine whether the lawyer may accept or continue the representation. Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:
(1) the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;
(2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client;
(3) the lawyer is discharged; or
(4) the client or prospective client seeks to use or persists in using the lawyer’s services to commit or further a crime or fraud, despite the lawyer’s discussion pursuant to Rules 1.2(d) and 1.4(a)(5) regarding the limitations on the lawyer assisting with the proposed conduct.
(b) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if:
(1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client;
(2) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;
(3) the client has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;
(4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement;
(5) 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;
(6) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or
(7) other good cause for withdrawal exists.
(c) A lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.
(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law.
1.16(a)(2) would apply if harassment actually materially impaired the lawyer's ability to represent the client. (4) would apply to my wild speculation that Aaron was doing something skeevy. (5) would apply to the absence of Mr. Green. (6) would apply if Aaron being a dick in general made the representation unreasonably difficult.
The notice of withdrawal cites Gen. R. Prac. 105:
Rule 105.
After a lawyer has appeared for a party in any action, withdrawal will be effective only if written notice of withdrawal is served on all parties who have appeared, or their lawyers if represented by counsel, and is filed with the court administrator if any other document in the action has been filed. The notice of withdrawal shall include the address, email address, if known, and phone number where the party can be served or notified of matters relating to the action.
Withdrawal of counsel does not create any right to continuance of any scheduled trial or hearing.
Note that despite the last line, Aaron almost certainly can file for another continuance based on the withdrawal of counsel. It is simply not a continuance as of right, and it would, I assume, be at the discretion of the judge.
In fact, conceivably, this is a vexatious litigant stunt of deliberately firing your lawyer to create grounds for a continuance, i.e. to keep the HRO in effect. That, again, is just wild speculation on my part, but it's a stunt I've seen way more than once. Stiffing Montgomery on the money end of things still seems the most likely situation, with pulling some dumb stunt a close second.
I'm sticking with the safer assumption that Nick is a crackhead retard and has no idea what's going on. He just knows it's good for him.To me, Nick's response says that he knows what happened.