If a lawyer voluntarily withdraws from a case for a personal reason, such as a family connection to the opposing side, can another lawyer in the same firm take over the representation?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1985. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The law firm of A, B & C inquired whether attorney B could undertake representing client X after attorney A withdrew from the matter for personal reasons. During A's representation of X, A learned that her first cousin was an officer of the corporate adverse party, then that the cousin was dating one of the individual adverse parties; the cousin and that individual defendant later married. A then felt compelled to withdraw, even though X was fully informed of the situation and asked the firm to continue the representation.
The opinion found that A exercised personal discretion to withdraw rather than being required to withdraw by a Disciplinary Rule. Because the withdrawal was discretionary and personal rather than rule-mandated, the opinion concluded that the vicarious disqualification provisions of Disciplinary Rule 5-105(D) do not apply, so A's associates or partners are not prohibited from representing X.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1985, before Tennessee's adoption of the 2003 Rules of Professional Conduct, which replaced the former Code of Professional Responsibility. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Does a lawyer's personal withdrawal from a case automatically disqualify the rest of the firm?
A: No. The opinion held that DR 5-105(D)'s vicarious disqualification provisions apply when withdrawal is required by a Disciplinary Rule, not when the lawyer withdraws as a matter of personal discretion.
Q: Why did the lawyer in this opinion withdraw if the client wanted the firm to continue?
A: The lawyer's first cousin was an officer of the corporate adverse party and later married one of the individual adverse parties; even though the client was fully informed and wanted the representation to continue, the lawyer chose to withdraw for that personal reason.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied Disciplinary Rule 5-105(D) of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which imputes a disqualified lawyer's conflict to the rest of the firm when the lawyer's own disqualification is required by a Disciplinary Rule. The modern correlate is Model Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts of interest), cited here as a navigational cross-reference rather than a rule the opinion itself applied.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Disciplinary Rule 5-105(D), Code of Professional Responsibility (vicarious disqualification of a firm)
See also
Source
- Landing page: https://www.tbpr.org/ethic_opinions/85-f-93
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
85-F-93 - No Vicarious Disqualification because of personal interest of withdrawing lawyer
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
FORMAL ETHICS OPINION 85-F-93
Inquiry is made by the law firm of A B & C concerning the ethical propriety of attorney B now undertaking to represent client X after attorney A withdrew from representing X due to personal reasons.
During the course of A's representation of X, she learned that her first cousin was an officer of the corporation which was one of the adverse parties. She later learned that one of the individual adverse parties was dating her cousin. Thereafter, the cousin officer of the defendant corporation and the individual defendant married. Attorney A then felt compelled to withdraw from representing X, even though the client was fully informed concerning the matter and requested that the law firm continue to represent her.
It appears that A exercised her personal discretion to withdraw from representation of X rather than being required to withdraw due to a Disciplinary Rule. In instances such as this, the vicarious disqualification provisions of Disciplinary Rule 5-105(D) do not apply. Therefore, A's associates or partners are not prohibited from representing X.
This 6th day of May , 1985.
ETHICS COMMITTEE:
Edwin C. Townsend, Chairman
W. J. Flippin
Henry H. Hancock
APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1985 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.