ALAN P. BROOKS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Trial court properly denied counsel's motion to withdraw on the eve of trial despite client's failure to pay attorney's fees, as withdrawal at that stage would have hindered court operations and there was insufficient time for client to obtain new counsel.
A trial court does not depart from the essential requirements of law by denying counsel's motion to withdraw when filed on the eve of trial, even if the client has failed to pay attorney's fees.
[1] Counsel's motion to withdraw based on client's nonpayment of attorney's fees may be properly denied when filed on the eve of trial, as withdrawal at that stage would impa…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCounsel for petitioner Brooks filed a motion to withdraw based on the client's failure to pay attorney's fees. The trial court denied the motion becau…
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 Court Administration cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We review the instant petition for writ of certiorari to determine whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law which resulted in irreparable harm. The trial court denied a motion to withdraw, filed by the counsel for the petitioner, for petitioner’s failure to pay attorney’s fees. We find that there was no departure and deny the petition.
The trial court’s denial of the motion to withdraw resulted in irreparable harm, but there was no departure from the essential requirements of law. See Fisher v. State, 248 So. 2d 479 (Fla.1971). Withdrawal may generally be granted when the case has not been set for trial, when the clients do not complain of delay, and when the clients do not fulfill their payment obligations. Becker & Poliakoff v. King, 642 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Here, the court denied further continuance and counsel’s motion to withdraw because it was filed on the eve of trial. At this point in time, withdrawal would have hindered the ordinary functioning of the court as the trial date was set and there was not ample time for the client to procure new counsel. Fisher, 248 So. 2d at 486. We therefore find that there was no departure from the essential requirements of law. The petition for certiorari is denied.
SHAHOOD, C.J., and WARNER, J., concur. FARMER, J., concurs in conclusion only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
King & Spalding LLP v. The Residences at the Bath Club Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 413 So. 3d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
-
Schultz v. State, 289 So. 3d 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…(citations omitted); see also Boudreau v. Carlisle, 549 So. 2d 1073, 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (citing Sanborn with approval). In the instant case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw. In Brooks v. State, 980 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), this court affirmed the denial of counsel’s motion to withdraw where the motion was filed on the eve of trial. This court explained, “At this point in time, withdrawal would have hindered the ordinary functioning of the court a…
-
Delacruz v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Fisher v. State, 248 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1971)
- Becker & Poliakoff v. King, 642 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)