Must a lawyer get a court's permission to withdraw when the court's rules require it, and can the lawyer be forced to disclose the client's address to do so?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1996. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Opinion 266 (adopted June 19, 1996) arose from immigration practice. After the INS adopted rules requiring a lawyer to obtain the immigration judge's leave before withdrawing, the inquirer noted that some lawyers avoided filing withdrawal notices for fear of triggering a hearing, which clients in deportation proceedings often did not want. He asked two questions: whether a lawyer who no longer represents a client but has not formally withdrawn must seek the court's leave, and whether the lawyer must give the client's last known address to the immigration judge, as Matter of Rosales required, before an unconditional withdrawal would be granted.
On the first question, the committee concluded that Rule 1.16(c), which requires a lawyer to continue a representation when ordered by a tribunal, also requires the lawyer to seek leave to withdraw where the tribunal's rules so require, as its predecessor DR 2-110(A) had done more explicitly. It is therefore insufficient to merely inform a former client of a pending hearing and advise him to secure new counsel; the lawyer's obligations are not discharged until leave has been obtained. The committee added, citing Rule 3.4(c), that the risk of harm to the client from compliance with the tribunal's rules is not a basis to disobey them, and that where the lawyer does not know the client's location, no harm follows because the lawyer can truthfully tell the judge he does not know.
On the second question, the committee concluded that a client's whereabouts may be protected as a "confidence" or, more often, a "secret" under Rule 1.6(b), because in a deportation case a removal order cannot be carried out without knowing where the client is, so disclosing the address would be detrimental to the client. The committee read Matter of Rosales not to force disclosure but to offer a choice: disclose the last known address and withdraw unconditionally, or withhold it and obtain only conditional withdrawal, under which the lawyer continues to accept service for the client. Given that choice, the committee concluded that revealing the client's whereabouts without consent would violate Rule 1.6(a)(1), so the lawyer is limited to seeking conditional withdrawal, which requires no disclosure of a confidence or secret.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1996, before the District of Columbia's adoption of the 2007 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Is telling the client about a hearing and advising new counsel enough to withdraw?
A: No. The committee concluded that where a tribunal's rules require leave to withdraw, Rule 1.16(c) requires the lawyer to obtain that leave, and the obligation is not discharged until leave is granted.
Q: Must the lawyer reveal the client's last known address to withdraw?
A: No, not without consent. The committee concluded that the client's whereabouts can be a protected confidence or secret under Rule 1.6, so the lawyer may not disclose it without consent and must instead accept conditional withdrawal.
Q: What is "conditional" withdrawal here?
A: Under Matter of Rosales, the committee explained, a lawyer who does not disclose the client's address may still withdraw, but only on the condition that the lawyer remains responsible for accepting service on the client's behalf.
Q: Does the risk of harm to the client excuse ignoring the tribunal's rules?
A: No. The committee concluded, citing Rule 3.4(c), that a lawyer may not knowingly disobey a tribunal's rules, so the possibility that compliance could harm the client is not a basis for skipping the required leave to withdraw.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interpreted D.C. Rule 1.16(c) (continuing representation when ordered by a tribunal, and the requirement to seek leave to withdraw where tribunal rules require it) together with Rule 1.16(d) (steps to protect the client on termination), Rule 1.6 (confidences and secrets, including a client's whereabouts), and Rule 3.4(c) (obeying tribunal rules). It applied Matter of Rosales and the INS withdrawal rules.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- D.C. RPC 1.16(c), (d) / Model Rule 1.16 (court-approved withdrawal; protecting the client)
- D.C. RPC 1.6 / Model Rule 1.6 (confidences and secrets)
- D.C. RPC 3.4(c) / Model Rule 3.4 (obeying tribunal rules)
Cases:
- Matter of Rosales, B.I.A. Interim Dec. No. 3064 (1988), conditions for withdrawal before the Immigration Court
- In re McKennett, 349 N.W.2d 29 (N.D. 1984), notice to the court required for withdrawal
See also
- DC Ethics Op. 288: Congressional Subpoena for Client Files
- ABA Formal Op. 476: Confidentiality in Withdrawing for Nonpayment
- ABA Formal Op. 92-366: Noisy Withdrawal to Avoid Assisting Fraud
Source
- Landing page: https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-266
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1996 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.