May a federal judge force a lawyer to keep representing an hourly client that refuses to pay?
The Sixth Circuit answered no — so long as the client gets “reasonable warning” and the lawyer’s withdrawal won’t cause the client “severe prejudice”. Proskauer Rose met those requirements, the court held, because it notified the client, Richard Jonathan Blech, three weeks in advance that it would ask for court permission to get out unless he paid overdue bills and because an pre-existing and ongoing stay of the case precluded a finding of prejudice. Brandon v. Blech, No. 08-5355 (6th Cir. Mar. 24, 2009).
[Blech had pleaded guilty to securities fraud, but Douglas C. Brandon went to trial on the same charge and lost. Brandon sued Blech for causing Brandon’s criminal culpability. The district court stayed Brandon’s civil case pending his criminal appeal. After Blech got behind on Proskauer Rose’s bills for defending him against Brandon’s claim, the firm gave Blech notice of its intent to move for withdrawal if he failed to get current. Blech balked, and Proskauer Rose filed a motion for leave to exit. The district court denied the request. Proskauer Rose appealed under the “collateral order” doctrine. The Sixth Circuit reversed the denial.]
Blawgletter notes that, although withdrawal left the client without counsel, the loss of representation by itself didn’t “prejudice” him in a way that would require the firm to stay on. The lack of activity in the case (due to the stay) assured that nothing bad would happen to his rights in the foreseeable future.
By contrast, a fast-moving case — one on the eve of trial, for example — could present a tougher challenge. That would hold especially true, as the court noted, if a firm delayed its demand to increase pressure on the client and thereby coerce payment.
