When should lawyers be able to withdraw from a case?

[The Minsky Moment]

The usual US rule is that permission of the tribunal is needed to withdraw.

All this business about "slavery" is a bit overdone.  Nothing forces an attorney to enter an appearance in a case as counsel of record.  Getting stiffed by your client is a risk of doing business in the law (as in everything else).  And while a client who breaks a fee agreement should not have the right to compel services, BB is correct that it may be that other innocent parties have interests at stake that need to be considered.

[crazy canuck]

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?

Off the top of my head I dont remember the specifics but I think they are appointed by the Provincial government in consultation with public interest groups.

[Sheilbh]

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.

How does you merchant navy work?

[ulmont]

How does you merchant navy work?

As I understand it, they effectively get drafted by the Navy in time of war, but I really have no clue.  The draft generally has been not viewed as impermissible involuntary servitude, for reasons that escape me but are likely thought of as "tradition."

[Sheilbh]

As I understand it, they effectively get drafted by the Navy in time of war, but I really have no clue.  The draft generally has been not viewed as impermissible involuntary servitude, for reasons that escape me but are likely thought of as "tradition."

It just strikes me that if you sign up to serve on a ship you surely can't quit two months in, when the ship's in Manila and you're the navigator?

[dps]

How does you merchant navy work?

As I understand it, they effectively get drafted by the Navy in time of war, but I really have no clue.  The draft generally has been not viewed as impermissible involuntary servitude, for reasons that escape me but are likely thought of as "tradition."

More that the Constitutional power of Congress to raise and regulate the armed forces under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution trumps the prohibition of involuntary servitude in the 13th Admendment.  I think that's the theory, anyway.  Seems a bit iffy to me.

[ulmont]

That theory sounds more than a little iffy.  If the later-passed amendment doesn't trump the original text, you can't ever really amend things.

[dps]

That theory sounds more than a little iffy.  If the later-passed amendment doesn't trump the original text, you can't ever really amend things.

Well, it's more of a "it doesn't apply to the government;  it applies to private employers" type of thing, I think.

Which, if anything, is worse.

[The Minsky Moment]

I doubt that the Civil War era Congress that proposed and passed the Amendment understood "involuntary servitude" to encompass a military draft, given that the same Congress had recently enacted one.

[The Minsky Moment]

13th amendment case on seaman contracts: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=165&invol=275

The prohibition of slavery, in the thirteenth amendment, is well known to have been adopted with reference to a state of affairs which had existed in certain states of the Union since the foundation of the government, while the addition of the words 'involuntary servitude' were said, in the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, to have been intended to cover the system of Mexican peonage and the Chinese coolie trade, the practical operation of which might have been a revival of the institution of slavery under a different and less offensive name. It is clear, however, that the amendment was not intended to introduce any novel doctrine with respect to certain descriptions of service which have always been treated as exceptional, such as military and naval enlistments, or to disturb the right of parents and guardians to the custody of their minor children or wards. The amendment, however, makes no distinction between a public and a private service To say that persons engaged in a public service are not within the amendment is to admit that there are exceptions to its general language, and the further question is at once presented, where shall the line be drawn? We know of no better answer to make than to say that services which have from time immemorial been treated as exceptional shall not be regarded as within its purview. 

Another case on the military draft: http://supreme.justia.com/us/245/366/case.html

Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.

The analysis in the first case is a bit more persuasive than the second one . . .

[Grey Fox]

Hey Minsky, the entire transcript from your signature is totally insane.

[dps]

13th amendment case on seaman contracts: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=165&invol=275

The prohibition of slavery, in the thirteenth amendment, is well known to have been adopted with reference to a state of affairs which had existed in certain states of the Union since the foundation of the government, while the addition of the words 'involuntary servitude' were said, in the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, to have been intended to cover the system of Mexican peonage and the Chinese coolie trade, the practical operation of which might have been a revival of the institution of slavery under a different and less offensive name. It is clear, however, that the amendment was not intended to introduce any novel doctrine with respect to certain descriptions of service which have always been treated as exceptional, such as military and naval enlistments, or to disturb the right of parents and guardians to the custody of their minor children or wards. The amendment, however, makes no distinction between a public and a private service To say that persons engaged in a public service are not within the amendment is to admit that there are exceptions to its general language, and the further question is at once presented, where shall the line be drawn? We know of no better answer to make than to say that services which have from time immemorial been treated as exceptional shall not be regarded as within its purview. 

Another case on the military draft: http://supreme.justia.com/us/245/366/case.html

Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.

The analysis in the first case is a bit more persuasive than the second one . . .

Well, the first case basically amounts to compelling specific performance for a contract, which certainly makes sense (despite what ulmont posted about specific performance earlier).  And yeah, that's a bit more persuasive than the argument in the second case (actually, a lot more persuasive, IMO).

[The Minsky Moment]

Hey Minsky, the entire transcript from your signature is totally insane.

Yeah - I have a sneaking suspicion the patent holders in that case are not going to prevail.

That will probably end up being one of the most significant opinions to come out this term.

[ulmont]

Hey Minsky, the entire transcript from your signature is totally insane.

Yeah - I have a sneaking suspicion the patent holders in that case are not going to prevail.

That will probably end up being one of the most significant opinions to come out this term.

It's In Re Bilksi.

[The Minsky Moment]

Hey Minsky, the entire transcript from your signature is totally insane.

Yeah - I have a sneaking suspicion the patent holders in that case are not going to prevail.

That will probably end up being one of the most significant opinions to come out this term.

It's In Re Bilksi.

No - that's wrong as well

It's In Re Bilski.