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

plaintiffattorneytrialdivorce

plaintiffdefendanttrialdivorce

Related Cases

Kriegsman v. Kriegsman, 150 N.J.Super. 474, 375 A.2d 1253

Facts

Mary-Ann Kriegsman retained the Rose firm to represent her in a divorce action against her husband, Bernard Kriegsman, after previously being represented by other counsel. She paid an initial retainer of $1,000 and later an additional $1,000, but due to her financial situation, she was unable to pay further fees. The Rose firm claimed to have spent significant time and resources on her case, which was complicated by her husband's pro se representation and uncooperative behavior. The firm sought to withdraw from representation, citing her inability to pay.

On December 22, 1975 plaintiff, who had been previously represented by other counsel, retained the Rose firm to represent her in a divorce action against her husband, defendant Bernard Kriegsman.

Issue

Did the Rose firm have justifiable cause to withdraw as attorneys for the plaintiff in the matrimonial action?

Did the Rose firm have justifiable cause to abandon the case without the consent of its client?

Rule

When a firm accepts a retainer to conduct a legal proceeding, it impliedly agrees to prosecute the matter to a conclusion and cannot abandon the case without justifiable cause or the consent of its client.

When a firm accepts a retainer to conduct a legal proceeding, it impliedly agrees to prosecute the matter to a conclusion.

Analysis

The court found that the Rose firm did not have cause to abandon the case, emphasizing that it was in both the plaintiff's and the firm's interest for the matter to be resolved expeditiously. With trial approaching, the court noted that it would be difficult for the plaintiff to find new representation, and her withdrawal would cause her clear prejudice. The court also highlighted the firm's obligation to continue representation despite the plaintiff's financial difficulties.

We are firmly convinced that the Rose firm did not have cause to abandon plaintiff's case, and that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion when he denied the firm's application and scheduled an early trial date.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial judge's decision to deny the Rose firm's application to withdraw and mandated that they continue representing the plaintiff through the completion of the trial.

Affirmed.

Who won?

Mary-Ann Kriegsman prevailed in the case because the court determined that the Rose firm did not have justifiable cause to withdraw from representation, which would have prejudiced her.

The court held that it was to plaintiff's and petitioners' advantage that matter be heard and disposed of as expeditiously as possible.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Gregori v. Bank of America, 207 Cal.App.3d 291, 254 Cal.Rptr. 853, 57 USLW 2481

Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 122 S.Ct. 1237, 152 L.Ed.2d 291, 70 USLW 4205, 70 USLW 4216, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2737, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3311, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 161

In re Link, 713 S.W.2d 487

McNeary v. American Cyanamid Co., 105 Wash.2d 136, 712 P.2d 845

Keck and Associates, P.C. v. Vasey, 359 Ill.App.3d 566, 834 N.E.2d 486, 295 Ill.Dec. 905