KING & SPALDING LLP
v.
THE RESIDENCES AT THE BATH CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., AND THE RESIDENCES AT THE BATH CLUB MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION, INC.
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.
An attorney in a civil case has a right to withdraw with client consent that should rarely be denied by the court, and denial constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law when withdrawal occurs well before trial and does not interfere with the court's efficient functioning.
[1] In civil cases, an attorney has a right to withdraw as counsel with client consent, and court approval of such withdrawal should rarely be withheld.
[2] Denial of an attorney's motion to withdraw constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law when withdrawal is sought well in advance of trial and does not…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“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 foundational rule that attorney withdrawal in civil cases is a right that courts should rarely deny.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKing & Spalding LLP appeared as counsel for Bath Club Entertainment in August 2024 in a property dispute that had been litigated since 2013. Several w…
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 Motion To Withdraw As Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed June 12, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-0961 Lower Tribunal No. 13-36250-CA-01 ________________
King & Spalding LLP, Petitioner,
vs.
The Residences at the Bath Club Condominium Association, Inc., and The Residences at the Bath Club Maintenance Association, Inc., Respondents.
A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas
J. Rebull, Judge.
King & Spalding LLP, and William L. Durham, II (Atlanta, GA), Val Leppert, David H. Kupfer and Ross E. Linzer, for petitioner.
Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., and Timothy J. McGinn, Becky N. Saka and Teresa S. Muñiz, for respondents.
Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and GOODEN, JJ.
GOODEN, J.
I.
The Residences at the Bath Club Condominium is a luxury condominium complex in Miami Beach. The Respondents—The Residences at the Bath Club Condominium Association, Inc. and The Residences at the Bath Club Maintenance Association, Inc.—represent the unit owners in that complex. The condominium is next to The Bath Club, a historic social club. Bath Club Entertainment, LLC is the successor to the initial developer of the parcel on which the condominium and The Bath Club sit. Bath Club Entertainment owns The Bath Club. Bath Club Entertainment and the Associations each own certain portions of the property.
Since at least 2007, a contentious dispute about the property has existed. The instant litigation was filed in 2013 and has included several appeals to our Court. See Residences at the Bath Club Maint. Ass’n, Inc. v. Bath Club Ent., LLC, 383 So. 3d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023); Bath Club Ent., LLC v. Residences at Bath Club Maint. Ass’n, Inc., 355 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023); Residences at Bath Club Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Bath Club Ent., LLC,
King & Spalding, LLP first appeared as counsel for Bath Club Entertainment in late August 2024. Once the firm appeared, it sought to continue the hearing on the motion for contempt to conduct more discovery. The hearing was ultimately reset for May 27, 2025, and the trial set to commence on February 9, 2026.
Several weeks before the contempt hearing, King & Spalding moved to withdraw as counsel.1 Citing Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.16(b)(3)- (5), it alleged various irreconcilable differences between it and its client,
1 King & Spalding and Bath Club Entertainment were severing their relationship, which included five litigated cases and two arbitrations. This split was not solely about the instant case.
II.
Certiorari is the proper means to review an order denying a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Becker & Poliakoff v. King, 642 So. 2d 821, 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Preddy, Kutner, Hardy, Rubinoff, Brown & Thompson v. Kleinschmidt, 498 So. 2d 453, 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). To obtain a writ of certiorari, a party must demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of the law that results in material injury that cannot be corrected on plenary appeal. Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Florida, Inc., 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004).
III.
“The relationship of attorney and client is one involving great personal and professional integrity and responsibility on the part of the lawyer and an equal confidence and trust on the part of the client.” Fisher v. State, 248 So.
Fisher, 248 So. 2d at 486. That rare situation is where the request is made immediately before or during trial. Id. at 484–86. See, e.g., Brooks v. State, 980 So. 2d 1095, 1095–96 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“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
But where that rare circumstance does not exist, denial of the request to withdraw is a departure of the essential requirements of the law and causes irreparable harm. See Elton v. Dougherty, 931 So. 2d 201, 203 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the trial court's denial of Elton's motion to withdraw. Failure to allow withdrawal in this case was a departure from the essential requirement of law.”); Becker & Poliakoff, 642 So. 2d at 822 (“We conclude that under Fisher the denial of the law firm’s motion to withdraw was a departure from the essential requirements of law and we thus grant certiorari.”).
With the full consent of its client, King & Spalding moved to withdraw nine months before the trial setting. There was ample time for Bath Club Entertainment to obtain substitute counsel and for the hearing on the motion for contempt to occur. While we understand the trial court’s desire to conduct the contempt hearing without delay, this withdrawal would not “interfere with the efficient and proper functioning of the court.” Fisher, 248 So. 2d at 486.
This was not one of those rare circumstances. Consent was wrongfully withheld by the trial court. Preddy, Kutner, Hardy, Rubinoff, Brown &
Petition granted; order quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Virgin v. Frexes (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
-
Podhurst Orseck, P.A. v. Frexes (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
-
Olin v. Execuflight, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Harvey v. Alvan B. Rowe, 141 Fla. 287 (Fla. 1940)
- Preddy v. Kleinschmidt, 498 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Becker & Poliakoff v. King, 642 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Chauvet v. In re Est. OF Pierre Chauvet, 599 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Elton v. Mare Dougherty, 931 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Brooks v. State, 980 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- The Residences AT the Bath Club v. Bath Club Ent., LLC, 166 So. 3d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- Semple v. State, 270 So. 3d 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)