84-10.

Case DateNovember 09, 1984
CourtAlaska
Alaska Ethics Opinion 1984. 84-10. Ethics Opinion No. 84-10Consent to Withdraw Executed when Representation Undertaken.The Committee has been asked to pass both upon the practice of attorneys obtaining consents to withdraw as a condition of employment by a client and their subsequent tender to the court. It is the opinion of this Committee that an attorney should not lodge with the court such a previously executed document without notice of hearing to his client under the guise of an express consent in writing to the withdrawal of the attorney. Further, a lawyer may not tender to the court such a previously executed document even following motion and notice of hearing to his client and opposing counsel. In the future, an attorney may not obtain a consent to withdraw in advance of an actual intent to withdraw. The aspects of obtaining such a consent to withdraw are delineated by professional standards and court rules. A lawyer shall not withdraw from employment in a proceeding before a tribunal without its permission, when permission for withdrawal is required by court rules. See DR 2-101 (A)(1). The procedure through which an attorney obtains the tribunal's consent to withdraw is provided by Alaska Civil Rule 81(d), which in pertinent part provides as follows: (1) An attorney who has appeared for a party in an action or proceeding may be permitted to withdraw as counsel for such party only as follows: (i) for good cause shown, upon motion and notice of hearing served upon the party in accordance with Rule 77; or (ii) where the party has other counsel ready to be substituted for the attorney who wishes to withdraw; or (iii) where the party expressly consents in open court or in writing to the withdrawal of his attorney. On one hand, the attorney may withdraw without the express consent of his client when good cause has been shown, but only following motion and notice of hearing. On the other hand, an attorney may withdraw without motion and notice of hearing, but only upon the client's express consent in court or in writing such a withdrawal. It is apparent that the consent pursuant to Alaska Civil Rule 81(d)(1)(iii) is contemplated to be a current consent, rather than one previously obtained. See also, ABA Canon 44. Therefore, the prior accord on withdrawal of counsel made between attorney and client may not be tendered to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT