Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Brandon v. Blech
Citations: 560 F.3d 536; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 6079; 2009 WL 746402Docket: 08-5355
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; March 24, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Proskauer Rose LLP represented Richard Blech in a civil suit arising from a securities fraud scheme involving Blech and Douglas Brandon. After Blech, who had pleaded guilty and served time, refused to pay overdue legal fees, Proskauer moved to withdraw as his counsel. The district court denied this motion, compelling Proskauer to continue representation without compensation. Proskauer appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion. The appellate court recognized its jurisdiction under the collateral-order doctrine, which allows for the review of orders that conclusively determine important issues separate from the merits of the case and cannot be effectively reviewed after a final judgment. The court noted that compelling an attorney to work without compensation falls within this doctrine, as it significantly impacts the attorney's ability to withdraw. The court reviewed the denial of Proskauer's motion for abuse of discretion, noting that while withdrawal decisions are typically at the court's discretion, local and ethical rules provide for permissive withdrawal when certain conditions are met, such as a client's failure to fulfill obligations to the lawyer or financial burdens imposed on the lawyer. Given these considerations, the appellate court reversed the district court's decision, allowing Proskauer to withdraw from the case. Every circuit addressing issues of withdrawal due to non-payment of fees has referenced professional conduct rules for guidance. While these rules do not guarantee a right to withdraw, they suggest that withdrawal is generally appropriate when criteria are met. Proskauer met these criteria by warning Blech of impending withdrawal if fees were unpaid, which constituted good cause under both Model and Local rules. The court, however, failed to acknowledge these rules, despite their relevance in this circuit. Withdrawal may be denied in cases of coercive attorney behavior or if it would cause significant prejudice to the client or third parties. Proskauer provided reasonable notice over three weeks and did not engage in coercive tactics, as the case was inactive with no urgent deadlines. The absence of identified prejudice, along with the court's acknowledgment that withdrawal would leave Blech without counsel, does not equate to severe prejudice, given the circumstances. The policy against compelling attorneys to represent clients who refuse payment is significant, as it creates undue burdens on legal counsel. Therefore, since the district court found no prejudicial concerns against allowing withdrawal, it abused its discretion by denying Proskauer's motion. The order denying the motion to withdraw is reversed.