GR 9 COVER SHEET
Suggested Amendment to the
SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL RULES (CR)
CR 71: Withdrawal by Attorney
Submitted by the Superior Court Judges’ Association
______________________________________________________________________
A. Name of Proponent: Superior Court Judges’ Association
B. Spokesperson: Judge Kitty-Ann van Doorninck, President
Superior Court Judges’ Association
A withdrawal by an attorney close to trial can leave former clients unrepresented during the most critical phase of a case. Those suddenly unrepresented litigants are often unfamiliar with applicable rules and deadlines let alone how to prepare for trial. As a result, in addition to potentially prejudicing the rights of the former client, those last-minute withdrawals can create havoc with trial schedules and case management.
In many cases, the court is unaware that the attorney representing the litigant has withdrawn until a week or less before trial. The suggested amendments require that if a notice of intent to withdraw is filed 90 days or less before the trial date, a courtesy copy must be delivered to the assigned judge or, if no assigned judge, the presiding judge of the department. That notice would allow the court an opportunity to determine how to deal with the situation, which might include conducting a case conference with the parties, making arrangements to ensure the party is prepared to proceed without representation, or denying the withdrawal in certain situations.
This proposed amendment also requires the withdrawing attorney provide additional information to the former client. That attorney must confirm in the notice that the client has been (i) provided a copy of the current case schedule, (ii) informed in writing about how to obtain his/her client files by the withdrawal’s effective date, and (iii) if a family law case, notified in writing of how the client can locate local family law rules.
In addition to the suggested amendments to CR 71, please see enclosed a draft pattern withdrawal form. When conferencing on Rule amendments, it was suggested that a pattern form for CR 71, which does not now exist, would be helpful when implementing an amended CR 71. This draft is offered as an example of a pattern form that could be submitted to the Pattern Form Committee if proposed Rule changes are adopted. It is not proposed as an amendment to CR 71 itself.