Hale v. Larry Latham Auctioneers, Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 August 1992 |
| Citation | 607 So.2d 154 |
| Parties | Ronald E. HALE v. LARRY LATHAM AUCTIONEERS, INC., et al. 1910960. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Ronald E. Hale, pro se.
Patrick H. Graves, Jr. and Stuart M. Maples of Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, Huntsville, for appellees.
After a nonjury trial, the plaintiffs, Larry Latham Auctioneers, Inc., Fortune Media Communications, Inc., and Larry Latham, obtained a substantial judgment against the defendant, Ronald E. Hale. Hale appealed, raising two issues:
(1) Whether the trial court erred to reversal in permitting Hale's attorney to withdraw from the case approximately three weeks prior to the trial; and,
(2) Whether the trial court erred to reversal in denying Hale's pro se motion for a continuance.
Rule 1.16(b), Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
The comment to Rule 1.16(b) states that "[a] lawyer may withdraw if the client refuses to abide by the terms of an agreement relating to the representation, such as an agreement concerning fees or court costs or an agreement limiting the objectives of the representation." Whether to permit an attorney to withdraw from representing a client is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court. Thomas v. Southeast Alabama Sickle Cell Ass'n, Inc., 581 So.2d 845 (Ala.1991). In Steele v. Gill, 283 Ala. 364, 369, 217 So.2d 75, 80 (1968), this Court, acknowledging that there is "no hard and fast rule" to be applied in determining whether a trial court has abused its discretion, wrote:
"[D]iscretion is abused whenever, in its exercise, the court has acted arbitrarily without the employment of its conscientious judgment, or has exceeded the bounds of reason in view of all the circumstances, or has so far ignored recognized rules or principles of law or practice as to [cause] substantial injustice."
The record in the present case shows that Hale's attorney moved to withdraw immediately after a fee dispute had caused a substantial breakdown of his professional relationship with Hale. Both Hale and his attorney were allowed to argue their respective positions to the trial court. After carefully reviewing the record and the briefs, we agree with the trial court that the motion to withdraw was "based on reasonable and necessary grounds." Therefore, we cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting Hale's attorney to withdraw.
The decision as to whether to grant a continuance also rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Thomas v. Southeast Alabama Sickle Cell Ass'n, Inc., supra. The record with respect to this issue shows that the trial court granted Hale several continuances during the course of this litigation. The attorney whose withdrawal is at issue was the third attorney to represent Hale in this case. Even though Hale was aware on the day that his attorney was allowed to withdraw that the trial was scheduled to commence approximately three weeks later, he waited until the last working day before the scheduled trial date to move for a continuance. Hale stated in his motion that he needed additional time in which to hire another attorney; however, there is no evidence that Hale actually solicited the services of another attorney. 1 On the day of trial the court stated its reasons for denying the motion:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex Parte Malone
...or has so far ignored recognized principles of law or practice as to cause substantial injustice. Hale v. Larry Latham Auctioneers, Inc., 607 So.2d 154, 155 (Ala. 1992); Dowdy v. Gilbert Eng'g Co., 372 So.2d 11, 13 Wright Therapy Equip., LLC v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, 991 So.2d......
-
Johnson v. City of Mobile
...Day, supra. Moreover, even if we were to consider Johnson's unsupported argument, it is not persuasive. In Hale v. Larry Latham Auctioneers, Inc., 607 So.2d 154, 155 (Ala.1992), this Court stated:“Whether to permit an attorney to withdraw from representing a client is a matter resting withi......
-
Wright Therapy Equipment v. Blue Cross, 1061074.
...or has so far ignored recognized principles of law or practice as to cause substantial injustice. Hale v. Larry Latham Auctioneers, Inc., 607 So.2d 154, 155 (Ala. 1992); Dowdy v. Gilbert Eng'g Co., 372 So.2d 11, 13 (Ala.1979)." Edwards v. Allied Home Mortgage Capital Corp., 962 So.2d 194, 2......
-
Edwards v. Allied Home Mortg. Capital Corp.
...or has so far ignored recognized principles of law or practice as to cause substantial injustice. Hale v. Larry Latham Auctioneers, Inc., 607 So.2d 154, 155 (Ala.1992); Dowdy v. Gilbert Eng'g Co., 372 So.2d 11, 13, A party may not comment on the failure of his opponent to call a witness if ......