Termination of Attorney-Client Relationship

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

VIII. Termination of attorney-client relationship

Termination of attorney-client relationship may be initiated by the defendant or defense counsel. State v. Davis, 415 Md. 22, 32-33 (2010).

A. Discharge of counsel or request for new counsel at the defendant's request

1. Was the defendant seeking to discharge counsel and/or obtain new counsel?

Although Md. Rule 4-215 is silent on the discourse needed to discharge counsel, any request to discharge counsel requires inquiry by the trial court or is reversible. Davis, 415 Md. at 32; Parren, 309 Md. at 282. There is no requirement that it be artfully worded, nor need it be explicit, so long as it triggers an understanding that the defendant seeks to discharge counsel. Gambrill v. State, 437 Md. 292 (2014); Taylor v. State, 431 Md. 615 (2013).

In Gambrill, the Court of Appeals determined that the trial judge could have reasonably concluded that the defendant wanted to discharge his public defender when the public defender requested a postponement on the day of trial and stated that the defendant indicated he would like to hire private counsel in the matter. This should have prompted the trial judge to make an inquiry under Rule 4-215, and the failure to do so was reversible error.

In Williams v. State, 435 Md. 474 (2013), the Court of Appeals held that the defendant's letter to the trial court was sufficient for the court to recognize it as a request to discharge his court-appointed counsel, thus triggering Rule 4-215; and the trial court's failure to inquire into the reasons for the defendant's request to discharge his court-appointed counsel was reversible error.

In Snead v. State, 286 Md. 122, 130-31 (1979), the defendant requested a continuance so that his family could retain another attorney, because the one he had thought he was guilty. When denied, the defendant stated that, in that event, he wanted no attorney. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the defendant's comments were sufficient to require an inquiry as to whether there was merit to his request to discharge counsel and obtain new counsel, and/or whether the defendant expressed a desire for self-representation.

In Leonard v. State, 302 Md. 111, 117 (1985), the defendant stated that his attorney was "no legal advisor for him" and he did not want him at counsel table. The trial court refused to discharge counsel. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the defendant's statements were a desire for self-representation, requiring further...