Henneberry v. City of Newark

Background

The court had appointed The Veen Firm, LLP and its attorneys to represent John Patrick Henneberry without charge for all purposes during the case. The firm represented Henneberry through a jury trial held April 15–18, 2024. On April 19, the jury returned a unanimous verdict, and the court entered final judgment for the City of Newark and Karl Fredstrom.

The Veen Firm moved to withdraw as Henneberry’s counsel on April 30, while the deadline for Henneberry to file a notice of appeal was approaching. The court expedited the motion, ordered any opposition by May 9, and required the firm to serve Henneberry with the order. The firm served him by mail and email and discussed the order and deadline with him by telephone. No opposition was filed.

Legal standard

The court explained that counsel may not withdraw until the court approves the withdrawal after written notice to the client and other parties who have appeared. Permission to withdraw is within the trial court’s discretion. The court must consider the reason for withdrawal, possible prejudice to the parties, and whether withdrawal would delay the case. Counsel must also take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable harm to the client, including giving enough notice to obtain replacement counsel.

Court’s reasoning

The court found good cause for withdrawal. The Veen Firm had already invested substantial time and resources in the case through trial and believed alternate representation could better serve Henneberry’s future goals. The firm also told the court that it did not specialize in appellate law or routinely practice at the appellate level. The court concluded that denying withdrawal could harm Henneberry’s ability to protect his right to appeal by requiring the firm to handle appellate matters it said it did not routinely handle.

The court also relied on the firm’s representations that Henneberry had said he did not oppose its plan to seek withdrawal and would not oppose the motion. Finally, the court found that the firm had provided the required notice and time for Henneberry to obtain replacement counsel. The court recognized that withdrawal might leave Henneberry without a lawyer but said that possibility alone was not a reason to deny the motion.

Disposition

The court GRANTED The Veen Firm’s motion to withdraw as counsel for Henneberry. Because no replacement lawyer had filed a substitution, the court conditioned the withdrawal on The Veen Firm’s remaining counsel of record for the limited purpose of forwarding documents filed in the matter to Henneberry. That duty continues until Henneberry files notice that he will represent himself and provides an address for service, or a substitution of counsel is filed. The firm must file proof of service within two business days after filing such documents. The court stated that this forwarding requirement does not apply to any appeal Henneberry may bring in the Ninth Circuit.