PREDDY, KUTNER, HARDY, RUBINOFF, BROWN & THOMPSON, PETITIONER,
v.
WILLIAM KLEINSCHMIDT, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A law firm petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review the trial court's denial of its motion to withdraw as counsel from a client due to irreconcilable conflicts. The appellate court held that attorneys in civil cases have a right to withdraw upon notice to the client and court approval, which should be rarely withheld absent interference with judicial efficiency.
The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in denying the motion to withdraw. Under controlling authority, any attorney in a civil case has the right to terminate the attorney-client relationship and withdraw as counsel of record upon notice to the client and court approval. Court approval should be rarely withheld and only upon a determination that granting withdrawal would interfere with the efficient and proper functioning of the court. Since withdrawal here would not substantially delay or interfere with court operations, approval was wrongfully withheld.
[1] An attorney has the right to terminate the attorney-client relationship and withdraw as counsel of record upon due notice to the client and approval by the court.
[2] A court should rarely withhold approval of an attorney's withdrawal, and only when granting the request would interfere with the efficient and proper functioning of the c…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We hold that in a civil case any attorney of record has the right to terminate the attorney-client relationship and to withdraw as an attorney of record upon due notice to his client and approval by the court. Approval by the court should be rarely withheld and then only upon a determination that to grant said request would interfere with the efficient and proper functioning of the court.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard from Fisher v. State regarding an attorney's right to withdraw in civil cases and the narrow grounds for denial.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe law firm Preddy, Kutner, Hardy, Rubinoff, Brown and Thompson represented William Kleinschmidt. Irreconcilable conflicts developed between Kleinsch…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an original petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of an order entered below denying a motion to withdraw as counsel filed by the petitioner herein, Preddy, Kutner, Hardy, Rubinoff, Brown and Thompson. The respondent in this proceeding is William Kleinschmidt, the petitioner’s client, who opposed the motion to withdraw below and opposes now the instant petition for a writ of certiorari;
The basis for petitioner’s motion to withdraw as counsel was a series of irreconcilable conflicts which developed between the respondent and the petitioner law firm, including the lawyer assigned by the firm to handle the respondent’s case, as to how the case should be handled. It appears without material dispute that the respondent became extremely dissatisfied with the way his case was being handled and demanded that the petitioner reassign the case to another attorney in the firm. The petitioner law firm stood by the representation being afforded by the lawyer assigned to the case, declined to reassign the matter to another lawyer in the firm, and moved to withdraw as counsel. The trial court denied the motion, although it is clear from this record that such withdrawal would not have substantially delayed the cause or otherwise interfered with efficient and proper functioning of the court.
We conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in denying the subject motion to withdraw based on the authority of Fisher v. State, 248 So. 2d 479, 486 (Fla. 1971), which states the controlling law as follows: We hold that in a civil case any attorney of record has the right to terminate the attorney-client relationship and to withdraw as an attorney of record upon due notice to his client and approval by the court. Approval by the court should be rarely withheld and then only upon a determination that to grant said request would interfere with the efficient and proper functioning of the court. The approval of the court of such withdrawal will not relieve the attorney of any civil liability for breach of duty or negligence to his client nor from appropriate disciplinary procedures for such act, if it is wrongfully done.”
Plainly, the petitioner had a right to terminate the attorney-client relationship under the circumstances of this case, subject to subsequent court approval. That approval was wrongfully withheld below, as the subject withdrawal would not have substantially delayed the cause or interfered with the efficient and proper functioning of the court.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order under review is quashed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to grant the petitioner’s motion to withdraw as counsel. The prior stay order entered by this court is also vacated.
Certiorari granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Becker & Poliakoff v. King, 642 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…firm filed this petition for certiora-ri from the order denying its motion to withdraw. We have jurisdiction. Hollis v. F.B. Myers & Bro. Co., 482 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) and Preddy, Kutner, Hardy, Rubinoff, Brown, & Thompson v. Kleinschmidt, 498 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). In Fisher v. State, 248 So. 2d 479, 486 (Fla.1971), our supreme court stated: We hold that in a civil case any attorney of record has the right to terminate the attorney-client relationship and to withdraw as an attorney of rec…
-
King & Spalding LLP v. The Residences at the Bath Club Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 413 So. 3d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
-
Parasailing Enters., Inc. v. Elnora Myers, 659 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…enial of the motion for substitution was a departure from the essential requirements of law and we grant certiorari as to that ground. See Fisher v. State, 248 So. 2d 479 (Fla.1971); Preddy, Kutner, Hardy, Rubinoff, Brown & Thompson v. Kleinschmidt, 498 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 500 So. 2d 544 (Fla.1986). Because the trial court did not enter an order on the request for admission of counsel pro hac vice, we decline to address that issue. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. THREADGILL, C.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fisher v. State, 248 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1971)