Hunter v. Sokoloff

Background

John Douglas Hunter, who was incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, brought a civil-rights complaint against Mike Sokoloff, a prison nurse, alleging excessive force. Durie Tangri LLP represented Hunter without charge after the court appointed the firm on May 1, 2019. The firm consulted extensively with Hunter, took several depositions, and retained an expert at its own expense.

Between July and September 2019, disputes developed between Hunter and Durie Tangri. The firm said Hunter continued directing it to file motions that it believed were not supported by existing law and could not be filed consistently with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and California professional-conduct rules. Durie Tangri notified Hunter on September 6, 2019, that it would seek permission to withdraw because of the resulting breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. The firm also provided Hunter with the case materials he requested.

Sokoloff did not oppose the withdrawal. The opinion states in a footnote that Sokoloff had died on July 19, 2019, and that the court had not identified his successor or representative; the court continued using his name for convenience. Hunter opposed withdrawal and separately asked the court to deny it unless new pro bono counsel was appointed in Durie Tangri’s place.

Legal standard

Under Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 11-5, a lawyer may not withdraw until the court grants permission after reasonable written notice to the client and other appearing parties. If the client does not consent and no replacement lawyer appears, the withdrawing lawyer generally must continue accepting papers from the court and opposing parties and forwarding them to the client until the client obtains new counsel or proceeds without a lawyer.

The court applied California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16. That rule permits withdrawal in several circumstances, including when a client insists on pursuing a position that lacks a good-faith legal basis or when the client’s conduct makes effective representation unreasonably difficult. Before withdrawing, counsel must take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable harm to the client, such as giving sufficient notice and returning client materials.

Court’s analysis

The court found good cause for withdrawal. It determined that Hunter insisted that Durie Tangri file motions the firm believed were unwarranted or unsupported by existing law, and that the attorney-client relationship had deteriorated to the point that effective representation was unreasonably difficult.

The court acknowledged that withdrawal could leave Hunter without a lawyer, but concluded that this possibility alone did not justify denying the motion. The court found that Durie Tangri had made good-faith efforts to address the breakdown, explained why it could not follow Hunter’s instructions, notified him nearly two months earlier, provided his case materials, and gave him an opportunity to respond.

Disposition

The court granted Durie Tangri LLP’s motion to withdraw as Hunter’s counsel and denied Hunter’s motion to deny withdrawal. Because Hunter would proceed without a lawyer, the court attached a handbook for people representing themselves in federal court. Until Hunter retained replacement counsel or entered an appearance on his own, Durie Tangri was ordered to accept service of papers from the court and parties and promptly forward them to Hunter. The firm also had to serve Hunter with the order and handbook and file proof of service.