I closed my law practice to take a non-legal job and my clients won't respond or hire new counsel. Can I withdraw from their contested probate case?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney had been retained by estate beneficiaries to investigate the administrator's sale of estate assets, had found irregularities, and had filed a petition in probate court seeking the administrator's explanation. The attorney then accepted full-time non-legal employment and closed the law practice. The clients declined the attorney's offer to secure substitute counsel, and the probate judge, aware the attorney was closing the office, would not permit substitution of counsel in the contested matter. The attorney located proposed substitute counsel, but the clients were unresponsive; after warning that he or she would withdraw if the clients did not make contact within ten days, and receiving no response, the attorney asked whether withdrawal was permitted.

The panel looked to Rule 1.17 ("Declining or Terminating Representation"), which sets out grounds for mandatory and discretionary withdrawal. It noted the attorney's primary reason for withdrawing, having accepted new employment and ceased practicing law, and pointed to the permissive grounds that representation would impose an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or that other good cause for withdrawal existed.

The panel then applied Rule 1.17(c): when a tribunal orders a lawyer to continue, the lawyer must do so notwithstanding good cause to terminate. On the facts, it appeared the attorney had not filed a motion to withdraw with the court despite the judge's comments. The panel advised that Rule 1.17 provides the arguments to support such a motion, but until the motion is granted the attorney remained obligated to continue the representation under Rule 1.17(c).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995, after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies the withdrawal rule (then numbered Rule 1.17) as originally adopted. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process; the corresponding Model Rule provision is Rule 1.16. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did closing the practice give the attorney an automatic right to withdraw?

A: No. The opinion treated closing the practice and the resulting burden as grounds that could support a motion to withdraw under Rule 1.17, not as a self-executing right to stop representing the clients.

Q: Did the clients' failure to respond let the attorney simply stop?

A: No. The opinion required the attorney to seek the court's leave; until a motion to withdraw was granted, the attorney had to continue the representation under Rule 1.17(c).

Q: What was the decisive fact?

A: The opinion emphasized that the attorney had not filed a motion to withdraw with the court, so despite good cause the obligation to continue remained until the tribunal permitted withdrawal.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 1.17 as it stood at the time, the rule on declining or terminating representation (the Model Rules address this subject in Rule 1.16). Rule 1.17(b) set out permissive grounds for withdrawal, including unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer and other good cause. Rule 1.17(c) required a lawyer ordered by a tribunal to continue the representation to do so notwithstanding good cause to withdraw. The panel read these together to require a formal motion and the court's leave before the attorney could end a contested representation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.16 / RI RPC 1.17(b) (permissive withdrawal; unreasonable financial burden; other good cause, as numbered at the time)
• RI RPC 1.17(c) (duty to continue when ordered by a tribunal)

See also

• RI EAP Op. 2018-01: Client controls a wrongful-death suit; lawyer may withdraw
• RI EAP Op. 2002-04: Rule 4.2 contact after discharge and file transfer

Source

• Landing page: https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Pages/Ethics-Advisory-Panel-default.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2095-08.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

FINAL

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION # 95-8, REQUEST # 566
Issued February 9, 1995

The inquiring attorney was retained by beneficiaries of an estate to investigate the actions of the Administrator of the estate in the sale of estate assets. The inquiring attorney discovered several irregularities regarding the sale and filed a petition with the probate court seeking the Administrator's explanation of the irregularities.

Soon, thereafter, the inquiring attorney accepted non-legal full time employment and closed his/her law practice. The clients declined the inquiring attorney's offer to secure substitute counsel. The probate judge, who was aware that the attorney was closing his/her law office, would not permit substitution of counsel on a contested matter.

To date, the clients have either been unable or reluctant to secure substitute counsel. The inquiring attorney located proposed substitute counsel. However, the clients were unresponsive. The inquiring attorney informed the clients that he/she would withdraw if they did not contact the inquiring attorney within ten days. They failed to do so. The inquiring attorney asks if he/she may withdraw in light of the fact that the clients have failed to communicate with him/her and that he/she no longer has a functional law office.

Rule 1.17 entitled "Declining or Terminating Representation" sets forth provisions for mandatory and discretionary withdrawal. The inquiring attorney's primary reason for withdrawing is that he/she has accepted new employment and has ceased practicing law. Rule 1.17(b)(5) and (6) states that an attorney may withdraw from representing a client if the client is not adversely affected and "the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer . . .; or (6) other good cause for withdrawal exists."

Rule 1.17(c) states that "[w]hen ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation." Despite the judge's comments, it appears from the facts provided that the inquiring attorney did not file a motion to withdraw with the court. Rule 1.17 sets forth arguments to support a motion to withdraw. Until the motion is granted, the attorney is under an obligation to continue the representation pursuant to Rule 1.17(c).