Whitaker v. Nowrouzi
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-03039
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Whitaker v. Nowrouzi, Judge Gilliam granted defense counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to forwarding-service conditions.
Defendants Zahra Nowrouzi and Rouhollah R. Nowrouzi, and their attorney Malcolm Leader-Picone. The attorney was permitted to withdraw but must forward papers to the defendants until they obtain new counsel or appear without counsel.
What happened
In Whitaker v. Nowrouzi, attorney Malcolm Leader-Picone asked to stop representing defendants Zahra Nowrouzi and Rouhollah R. Nowrouzi. He said continued representation had become unreasonably difficult because the defendants stopped communicating, did not follow his advice, and said they could no longer pay his fees.
The court found that counsel gave the required notice and that withdrawal was allowed under the applicable rules. It also found that withdrawal would not unfairly harm the other parties or delay the case. The opinion addresses the attorney’s withdrawal, not the underlying claims.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the motion. He required Leader-Picone to accept papers for forwarding to the defendants and to notify them of that requirement until they obtain another lawyer or appear without one.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. Nowrouzi · No. 4:21-cv-03039
- Haywood Gilliam
- Apr. 29, 2022
Background
Malcolm Leader-Picone, who represented defendants Zahra Nowrouzi and Rouhollah R. Nowrouzi, moved to withdraw as their counsel. He stated that effective representation had become unreasonably difficult because the defendants had failed and refused to communicate with him. He also cited their failure to follow his advice and their statement that they could no longer pay for his services.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that counsel may withdraw only with the court’s permission after giving reasonable advance written notice to the clients and other parties who have appeared. If withdrawal is not accompanied by new counsel or an agreement that the party will represent themselves, the court may require the withdrawing lawyer to continue accepting papers for forwarding.
The court also considered California professional-conduct rules, which allow withdrawal in some circumstances, including a client’s failure to meet fee obligations. Those rules require a lawyer to take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable harm to the client, including giving notice and allowing time to obtain another lawyer. More generally, the court balanced the reasons for withdrawal against possible prejudice to other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, and delay.
Ruling
The court found that Leader-Picone satisfied the applicable local rules by filing his motion on March 10, 2022, and giving the plaintiff and defendants more than a month’s notice. The court was also persuaded that withdrawal was permitted under the California rules. It found that withdrawal was fair and would not cause undue prejudice or delay. The motion to withdraw as counsel for the defendants was GRANTED, subject to the stated conditions.
Leader-Picone must accept service of papers for forwarding to the defendants until they appear through other counsel or without counsel. He must also notify the defendants of this condition.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.