Sobol v. District Court of Arapahoe County
| Decision Date | 17 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80SA322,80SA322 |
| Parties | Ellis J. SOBOL and Zuckerman & Sobol, P. C., Petitioners, v. DISTRICT COURT OF ARAPAHOE COUNTY, and the Honorable Neil Horan, one of thejudges thereof, and Helen M. Sterling, individually, Helen M. Sterling asAdministratrix C.T.A. of the Estate of Ernst H. Sterling, Deceased, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Zuckerman & Sobol, P. C., Ellis J. Sobol, Denver, for petitioners.
Neil Horan, Judge, Littleton, pro se.
Helen M. Sterling, pro se.
Ellis J. Sobol and the law firm of Zuckerman & Sobol, P. C., petitioners, filed this original proceeding pursuant to C.A.R. 21, seeking relief in the nature of prohibition and a stay of proceedings. The petitioners ask that we order the respondent trial court to reverse a ruling denying their motion for leave to withdraw as counsel for Helen M. Sterling, individually, and Helen M. Sterling, as administratrix c. t. a. of the Estate of Ernst H. Sterling, deceased (Sterling), in Civil Action No. 79CV828, in the District Court in and for Arapahoe County.
We issued our rule to show cause. The respondent district court and Sterling have filed their answer, and, having considered the merits thereof, we now make the rule absolute.
Several years ago, the petitioners were retained by Sterling to represent her in her capacity as the administratrix c. t. a. of the estate of her deceased husband. Subsequently she requested petitioners to initiate a civil action against the law firm of Simon, Eason, Hoyt & Malone. The petitioners agreed to undertake such representation and, from what appears in the record before us, a contingent fee agreement was entered into between the parties.
The petitioners filed an action against the law firm in the district court of Arapahoe County (case 79CV828), and this case was ultimately set for trial to a jury commencing September 29, 1980.
During the course of the representation by petitioners of Sterling in case 79CV828, certain disputes and disagreements arose. Petitioners argue that Sterling was uncooperative, critical of their handling of the litigation, deliberately withheld material information, repeatedly contacted the attorney for the defendants, and has made effective representation impossible.
Sterling has denied responsibility for these disputes and disagreements and has rejected petitioners' characterization of their dealings with one another. She claims that she is entitled to be represented by petitioners because a contingent fee agreement had been agreed to and because she has not been able to secure the services of other counsel. Nevertheless, aside from the question of responsibility, Sterling does not deny the seriousness of the various conflicts that have arisen in their attorney-client relationship.
On November 30, 1979, ten months before case 79CV828 was scheduled to go to trial, petitioners filed motion for leave to withdraw as counsel. After a hearing on February 7, 1980, the respondent trial court granted the motion and gave Sterling thirty days to obtain new counsel. She filed pro se a Motion for Rehearing, and, on April 4, 1980, the trial court affirmed its prior ruling, but further ordered the petitioners to use their best efforts in assisting Sterling to find other counsel and report back to the court within ninety days.
On July 7, 1980, another hearing was held, and the respondent trial court was advised by both petitioners and Sterling that new counsel had not been obtained. Although recognizing an obvious antagonistic relationship between the petitioners and Sterling and the handicap this presented in preparation of the case at issue, the court held that Sterling would be even more prejudiced if she were required to appear pro se. The court, therefore, reversed its prior decision and denied petitioners' motion for leave to withdraw.
I.
The question of whether an attorney should be permitted to withdraw his general appearance on behalf of a litigant in a civil case is, under ordinary circumstances, within the discretion of the trial court; and its decision will not be reversed unless this discretion has been demonstrably abused. Holland v. Holland, 150 Colo. 442, 373 P.2d 523 (1962); Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Radcliffe on Delaware, Inc., 439 Pa. 159, 266 A.2d 698 (1970). As a general rule, an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly agrees that he will pursue it to some conclusion; and he is not free to abandon it without reasonable cause. Riley v. District Court, 181 Colo. 90, 507 P.2d 464 (1973). See Code of Professional Responsibility, C.R.C.P. Appendix C, Canon 2, DR 2-110(C)(1). Even where cause may exist, the attorney's withdrawal must be undertaken in a proper manner, duly protective of his client's rights and liabilities. Blackwell v. Midland Federal Savings, 132 Colo. 45, 284 P.2d 1060 (1955). See Code of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
IN RE BAILEY
...that a court "may forbid withdrawal if it would work severe prejudice on the client or third parties"); Sobol v. Dist. Ct. of Arapahoe County, 619 P.2d 765, 767 (Colo.1980) (stating that an "attorney's withdrawal must be undertaken in a proper manner, duly protective of his client's rights ......
-
People in Interest of M.M.
...to discharge an attorney and an attorney's motion to withdraw, e.g., People v. Schultheis, 638 P.2d 8 (Colo.1981); Sobol v. District Court, 619 P.2d 765 (Colo.1980), and the court's ruling on such motions will not be disturbed on review in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. In ruli......
-
People v. Demarest, 89CA0447
...to conduct an action impliedly stipulates that he will prosecute it to a conclusion. Riley v. District Court, supra; Sobol v. District Court, 619 P.2d 765 (Colo.1980). Here, it is undisputed that the public defender represented defendant throughout two prior appeals, including the filing of......
-
Blessing v. Dow Chemical Co.
...(7th Cir.1982); Statue of Liberty v. International United Industries, Inc., 110 F.R.D. 395 (S.D.N.Y.1986); Sobol v. District Court of Arapahoe County, 619 P.2d 765 (Colo.1980); Custom Builders, Inc. v. Clemons, 52 Ill.App.3d 399, 10 Ill.Dec. 149, 367 N.E.2d 537 Where, as here, ample notice ......
-
Handling Electronic Documents Purloined by a Client
...Barker, "What about Inadvertently Disclosed Documents or Information?" 60 Def. Couns. J. 613, 615 (Oct. 1993). [71] Sobol v Dist. Ct., 619 P.2d 765, 767 (Colo. 1980). Accord Colo. RPC 1.3, cmt. [4] ("Unless the relationship is terminated as provided in Rule 1.16, a lawyer should carry throu......
-
Law Office Management: Boundaries of Behavior
...Razatos, 636 P.2d 666, appeal dismissed, 455 U.S. 930, 102 S.Ct. 1415 71 L.Ed 2d 639 (1982). 2. Sobol v. District Court, Arapahoe County. 619 P.2d 765 (Colo. 1980). 3. Osborn v. District Court, Fourteenth Judicial District, 619 P.2d 41 (Colo. 1980). 4. Coon v. Ginsberg, 509 P.2d 1293 (Colo.......