26. KRIEGSMAN v. KRIEGSMAN 150 N.J.Super. 474, 375 A.2d 1253 (App. Div. 1977)
Facts
Mrs. Kriegsman (the client) retained the law firm, Rose Farm (the firm), to represent her in divorce proceedings against her husband. The firm performed legal services on her behalf and billed a total of $7,354.50. The client was receiving financial assistance from the government and was unable to pay the full amount of the fees. The firm stated that it would discontinue representation, and the client requested that the court not permit the firm’s withdrawal, arguing that a new attorney would require time to review the extensive materials and that the firm had been aware from the beginning of her unstable financial condition. The trial court denied the firm’s application to withdraw. The firm appealed.
Issue
May an attorney withdraw from representation when the client paid an initial retainer but lacks sufficient assets to pay additional fees?
Rule
7 Am. Jur.2d, Attorneys at Law, § 143 at 134 (1963)
The firm is not at liberty to abandon the case without justifiable or reasonable cause, or the consent of its client.
Application
The firm argued that the client’s inability to pay further fees constituted a valid reason for discontinuing representation. The client contended that the firm had been aware of her financial condition from the beginning and that she had paid a $2,000 retainer. The court agreed with the client, reasoning that once an attorney accepts a retainer, it implies an obligation to continue representation through the conclusion of the matter unless justifiable or reasonable cause exists. (7 Am. Jur.2d, Attorneys at Law, § 143 at 134) Here, the firm represented the client in a divorce proceeding with full knowledge that she lacked sufficient financial resources to pay the fees. Because the firm had accepted a valid retainer, it should not withdraw merely because the representation had become unprofitable. Accordingly, the firm’s application to withdraw was denied.
Holding
No. An attorney may not withdraw from representation merely because the matter has become unprofitable.
Conclusion
Affirmed.
Feedback
Chancery Division - New Jersey Superior Court’s Appellate Division (항소부)
Nunc pro tunc - 소급 적용
Cf. Suffolk Roadways, Inc. v. Minuse, … Confer - 비교/참고용
The court again reaffirmed its position that the client’s interests come before those of the attorney. If a client lacks sufficient funds to pay legal fees, the attorney may not easily withdraw once he has decided to represent her. A reasonable cause is required to withdraw from the case, and pecuniary interest alone does not constitute such a cause.