Client v. Law Firm: Judge Denies Withdrawal Motion in Med-Mal Case
Arguing her position pro se, a woman has persuaded a Suffolk County, N.Y., judge not to allow a Manhattan law firm to bow of out her ongoing medical malpractice case.
The firm, Mirman, Markovitz & Landau, had sought the court’s permission to withdraw, contending that “the attorney-client relationship is at an impasse.” However, Supreme Court Justice Peter Mayer denied the firm’s motion, finding it didn’t make the required showing that a withdrawal wouldn’t have a material adverse effect on the client’s case, according to the New York Law Journal. Its article is reprinted by New York Lawyer (reg. req.).
The client, Tracey Scher, 45, contends that her cancer wasn’t initially diagnosed when she went to see a doctor about a lump in her breast. After the firm took the case, it had difficulty finding an expert to testify that Scher’s treatment was substandard and wanted out, according to the article. “It seems to me that my case is requiring more work than my attorneys had originally anticipated, or perhaps they never anticipated having to take it to trial,” Scher writes in a filing opposing the withdrawal motion. She says she would now have difficulty finding another lawyer.
In making his ruling, Mayer relied on Disciplinary Rule 2-110, the article explains. It provides that an attorney “shall not withdraw from employment until the lawyer has taken steps to the extent reasonably practicable to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client.” However, withdrawal is allowed, under the legal ethics rule, if it doesn’t have a “material adverse effect on the interests of the client” or if the client’s “conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out employment effectively.”
