RIEAP June 24, 1988

I represent a guardian of a minor's estate in Probate Court. I've sent six letters over 15 months reminding my client of the legal duty to file accounts, and my client still hasn't filed them. Can I withdraw?

Short answer: Yes. The panel held that, based on the attorney's representations, he could move to withdraw under DR 2-110(C)(1)(d), while remaining subject to the general withdrawal requirements of DR 2-110(A).

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1988. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1988
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

An attorney asked the panel whether it was appropriate to move to withdraw as attorney of record in Probate Court for the guardian of the estate of a minor child. The attorney explained that he had sent his client six letters over the past fifteen months reminding the client of a guardian's obligation to file accounts under R.I.G.L. 1956 (1984 Reenactment) Section 33-15-26, but that despite his urging, the client had not filed the required accounts for the minor's estate.

Based on these representations, the panel took the position that the attorney could move to withdraw under DR 2-110(C)(1)(d), which the opinion quotes as permitting withdrawal, where mandatory withdrawal under DR 2-110(B) does not apply, when the client's other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the employment effectively. The panel noted that the attorney remained bound by the general provisions governing withdrawal from employment set out in DR 2-110(A).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before the Rhode Island Supreme Court's adoption of the 2007 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and it applies the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility's Disciplinary Rules then in effect. 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: My client, a guardian, won't file the legally required probate accounts no matter how many times I remind them. Can I withdraw?

A: Yes, on facts like these. The opinion holds that repeated, documented reminders that go unheeded support withdrawal under DR 2-110(C)(1)(d), because the client's conduct renders effective representation unreasonably difficult.

Q: Are there other rules I still need to follow when withdrawing in this situation?

A: Yes. The opinion notes the attorney remains bound by the general withdrawal provisions of DR 2-110(A), separate from the permissive-withdrawal ground under DR 2-110(C)(1)(d).

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies DR 2-110(C)(1)(d) of the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility, then in force in Rhode Island, permitting withdrawal from representation before a tribunal where the client's conduct renders effective representation unreasonably difficult, together with the general withdrawal provisions of DR 2-110(A) and the mandatory-withdrawal provision of DR 2-110(B), referenced as inapplicable on these facts.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • RI DR 2-110(C)(1)(d) (permissive withdrawal where client conduct renders effective representation unreasonably difficult)
  • RI DR 2-110(B) (mandatory withdrawal, referenced as inapplicable on these facts)
  • RI DR 2-110(A) (general provisions governing withdrawal from employment)

Statutes:

  • R.I.G.L. 1956 (1984 Reenactment) Section 33-15-26 (guardian's obligation to file accounts)

Cases:

  • None cited.

Other opinions cited:

  • None cited.

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

DIGEST OF ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION #88-15, REQUEST #10
ISSUED JUNE 24, 1988

An attorney seeks Panel advice as to whether it is appropriate for him to move to withdraw as attorney of record in Probate Court for the guardian of the estate of a minor child. The attorney advises the Panel that he has sent his client six letters in the past 15 months reminding the client of a guardian's obligations to file accounts as set forth in R.I.G.L. 1956 (1984 Reenactment) Section 33-15-26. The attorney states that despite his urgings, his client has not filed the required accounts for the estate of the minor child.

Based on the attorney's representations, the Panel takes the position that the attorney may move to withdraw pursuant to DR 2-110(C)(1)(d). This rule provides, in pertinent part that

(C) . . . if DR 2-110(B) [Mandatory withdrawal] is not applicable, a lawyer may not request permission to withdraw in matters pending before a tribunal, and may not withdraw in other matters unless such request or such withdrawal is because; (1) His client . . . (d) By other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out his employment effectively.

The Panel notes that the inquiring attorney is also bound by the general provisions governing withdrawal from employment as set forth in DR 2-110(A).

Ethics Advisory Panel advice is protective in nature. There is no requirement that an attorney abide by a Panel opinion, but if he or she does, he or she is fully protected from any charge of impropriety.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1988 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.