§71.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§71.7SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

When a lawyer contracts to perform professional services, the lawyer is required to carry the matter through to completion unless there is good cause for withdrawal. A decision to withdraw should only be made for compelling reasons and with consideration of the possibility of prejudice to the client. Hansen v. Wightman, 14 Wn.App. 78, 538 P.2d 1238 (1975).

When a lawyer decides to withdraw for cause, a duty remains to protect the welfare of the client. The attorney must give notice of withdrawal, suggest employment of other counsel, return papers and property to which the client is entitled, cooperate with succeeding counsel, refund compensation not earned, and minimize the possibility of harm to the client. Hansen v. Wightman, 14 Wn.App. 78, 538 P.2d 1238 (1975).

As between attorney and client, leave of court to withdraw is not required, but it may be necessary when an adverse party is involved and an appearance has been filed on behalf of that party. Bostock v. Brown, 198 Wash. 288, 88 P.2d 445 (1939).

Under RCW 2.44.040, when a client initiates termination of services or change of counsel, the attorney whose services will terminate has a right to be paid for services rendered. In such cases, the court may award fees as part of the order for change of counsel. This remedy ordinarily is not available in cases of voluntary withdrawal initiated by the attorney. When, however, the client fails to move to substitute counsel, and by inaction forces the attorney to bring a motion for withdrawal, the court may treat the case as one of forced, rather than voluntary withdrawal, and award fees to the withdrawing attorney. Erickson v. Fargo Van & Storage, Inc., 25 Wn.App. 502, 607 P.2d 894, review denied, 93 Wn.2d 1028 (1980).

When the relationship between attorney and client has deteriorated to the point that withdrawal must be permitted, the trial court has discretion to decide whether to grant the client a continuance. When withdrawal was sought approximately two months prior to the trial date, one continuance had previously been granted, and other factors militated in favor of holding to the trial date, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny a request for continuance. Willapa Trading Co. v. Muscanto, Inc., 45 Wn.App. 779, 727 P.2d 687 (1986).

In a case in which a guardian who had employed an attorney to manage the estate of an incompetent asked the attorney to withdraw and the attorney refused to do so, the...