When should lawyers be able to withdraw from a case?

[MadImmortalMan]

You can't force a man to work for you. That's called slavery. The judge should be able to make adjustments for counsel that quits. Postpone the case so the new guy can catch up--that sort of thing.

[CountDeMoney]

Professional standards insufficient to monitor lawyers

Understatement of the year.

[Martinus]

I would rather imagine that the court is going to let a lawyer withdraw if he's not being paid.

But why this should this even be subject to the court's approval?

If you are working for someone and they stop paying you, do you need to go to court to tell you that you are free to stop working for them?

[Martinus]

You can't force a man to work for you. That's called slavery.

Errr no. Slavery is forcing someone to work for you for free.

Forcing someone to perform a contract they signed is something normal, especially if the other party performed their part.

Now, it is usually recognized that specific performance in contracts can be counterproductive, especially in cases where it involves some work/service being performed, and it is usually more sensible to award damages to let the client find someone actually willing to work. But it has nothing to do with slavery. 

[CountDeMoney]

You can't force a man to work for you. That's called slavery.

Errr no. Slavery is forcing someone to work for you for free.

Forcing someone to perform a contract they signed is something normal, especially if the other party performed their part.

That's indentured servitude.  We also called that "sharecropping".

[ulmont]

Forcing someone to perform a contract they signed is something normal, especially if the other party performed their part.

Not in the US, if the contract would require personal services, specifically to avoid the involuntary servitude problem.  Forcing someone to pay damages, sure; forcing someone *not* to take a specified act, ok; forcing someone to actually do something, no.

[Barrister]

I would rather imagine that the court is going to let a lawyer withdraw if he's not being paid.

But why this should this even be subject to the court's approval?

If you are working for someone and they stop paying you, do you need to go to court to tell you that you are free to stop working for them?

Because it can fuck with a hell of a lot more people than just the lawyer if trials get adjourned/moved.

If a lawyer asks to get off the record months before a trial because of unpaid fees?  Of course it'll be granted.  But the morning of trial, with the court and the witnesses ready to go?  That's a different matter.

[MadImmortalMan]

But why this should this even be subject to the court's approval?

If you are working for someone and they stop paying you, do you need to go to court to tell you that you are free to stop working for them?

Because it can fuck with a hell of a lot more people than just the lawyer if trials get adjourned/moved.

If a lawyer asks to get off the record months before a trial because of unpaid fees?  Of course it'll be granted.  But the morning of trial, with the court and the witnesses ready to go?  That's a different matter.

Yeah, but that's the nature of freedom. Sometimes not forcing people can cause others headaches. It can cause all kinds of awful stuff, actually. Just because it will doesn't make it okay to make them stay on against their will.

[Barrister]

But why this should this even be subject to the court's approval?

If you are working for someone and they stop paying you, do you need to go to court to tell you that you are free to stop working for them?

Because it can fuck with a hell of a lot more people than just the lawyer if trials get adjourned/moved.

If a lawyer asks to get off the record months before a trial because of unpaid fees?  Of course it'll be granted.  But the morning of trial, with the court and the witnesses ready to go?  That's a different matter.

Yeah, but that's the nature of freedom. Sometimes not forcing people can cause others headaches. It can cause all kinds of awful stuff, actually. Just because it will doesn't make it okay to make them stay on against their will.

No one forces a lawyer to start working for anybody in the first place.

But once you do go "on the record" you do owe a professional responsibility to the court that you can't just walk away from at a moment's notice.

[MadImmortalMan]

No one forces a lawyer to start working for anybody in the first place.

But once you do go "on the record" you do owe a professional responsibility to the court that you can't just walk away from at a moment's notice.

Oh yes, I totally understand that. Any lawyer that dicks over their client like that deserves to burn in hell. I just think it's a greater evil to force them to work against their will.

[Barrister]

No one forces a lawyer to start working for anybody in the first place.

But once you do go "on the record" you do owe a professional responsibility to the court that you can't just walk away from at a moment's notice.

Oh yes, I totally understand that. Any lawyer that dicks over their client like that deserves to burn in hell. I just think it's a greater evil to force them to work against their will.

Think of it as similar to the requirement to give 2 weeks notice to your employer.

[MadImmortalMan]

Think of it as similar to the requirement to give 2 weeks notice to your employer.

There's no requirement to do that, but I get where you're coming from, yes.

[Neil]

Oh yes, I totally understand that. Any lawyer that dicks over their client like that deserves to burn in hell. I just think it's a greater evil to force them to work against their will.

I have a hard time feeling bad for the lawyers.

[Admiral Yi]

That is how it works in Canada for both lawyers and Doctors.  FYI most bar associations have non lawyers sitting on their boards and tribunals to represent the interests of the public.

How are those non lawyers selected?

[DontSayBanana]

By forcing the attorneys to explain themselves, one is assuming that they're acting unethically and forcing them to prove otherwise; one can't manage a professional association where it's assumed that members aren't playing by the rules.

The biggest problem I have with this, though, is giving judges the authority to review.  If an attorney's going to walk away from a case, it's either because one has stumbled upon a conflict of interests or because something is so damning it would hinder one's ability to effectively represent one's client.  Either way, it's not something a judge should have anything to do with, as either could irrevocably skew a case.  If anyone is going to be given oversight authority; it should be the bar association; they do well enough overseeing attorney trust funds.