Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitdefendantattorneyappealmotionmalpracticecivil rights
plaintiffdefendantdamagesattorneyappealmotionsummary judgmentmalpracticecivil rightsdue processappellee

Related Cases

Herrera-Corral v. Hyman, 408 Ill.App.3d 672, 948 N.E.2d 242, 350 Ill.Dec. 173
View Case »
San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San Diego, 247 Cal.App.4th 1306, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 34, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5941, 2016 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5453
View Case »
Adell v. Sommers, Schwartz, Silver and Schwartz, P.C., 170 Mich.App. 196, 428 N.W.2d 26
View Case »
Dano v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 827, 451 N.E.2d 488, 464 N.Y.S.2d 741
View Case »
Makins v. District of Columbia, 861 A.2d 590
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Whiting v. Lacara, 187 F.3d 317

Facts

In July 1996, Joseph M. Whiting, a former police officer, initiated a civil rights lawsuit against Nassau County and several other defendants following his termination. After changing attorneys multiple times, Whiting's current attorney, Garrett R. Lacara, sought to withdraw from the case, citing Whiting's failure to follow legal advice and his insistence on pursuing dismissed claims. The district court initially denied Lacara's motion to withdraw, prompting an appeal.

In July 1996, appellee, a former police officer, filed a civil rights action against Nassau County, the Incorporated Village of Old Brooksville, the Old Brooksville Police Department, other villages, and various individual defendants. The action was based on the termination of his employment as an officer. He sought $9,999,000 in damages. Appellee's initial counsel was Jeffrey T. Schwartz. In October 1996, Robert P. Biancavilla replaced Schwartz. A jury was selected in October 1997 but was discharged when Biancavilla withdrew from the case with appellee's consent. Whiting retained Lacara in December 1997. In June 1998, the district court partially granted defendants' summary judgment motion and dismissed plaintiff's due process claims.

Issue

Whether the district court erred in denying Lacara's motion to withdraw as counsel for Whiting.

Whether the district court erred in denying Lacara's motion to withdraw as counsel for Whiting.

Rule

An attorney may withdraw from representation only with the court's permission, which is granted upon showing satisfactory reasons for withdrawal, particularly when the attorney-client relationship has become untenable.

An attorney may withdraw from representation only with the court's permission, which is granted upon showing satisfactory reasons for withdrawal, particularly when the attorney-client relationship has become untenable.

Analysis

The Court of Appeals found that Whiting's insistence on dictating legal strategies and his threat to sue Lacara if those strategies were not followed created a conflict of interest. This situation rendered it impossible for Lacara to continue representing Whiting without risking malpractice claims or ethical violations under Rule 11.

The Court of Appeals found that Whiting's insistence on dictating legal strategies and his threat to sue Lacara if those strategies were not followed created a conflict of interest. This situation rendered it impossible for Lacara to continue representing Whiting without risking malpractice claims or ethical violations under Rule 11.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, allowing Lacara to withdraw as counsel for Whiting.

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, allowing Lacara to withdraw as counsel for Whiting.

Who won?

Garrett R. Lacara prevailed in the appeal, as the court recognized the untenable situation he faced due to Whiting's demands and threats.

Garrett R. Lacara appeals from two orders of Judge Spatt denying Lacara's motions to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff-appellee Joseph M. Whiting. Although the record before Judge Spatt justified denial of the motions, amplification of Whiting's position at oral argument persuades us to reverse.

You must be