## Facts

- Fidelity sued Intercounty in federal court alleging that about $20 million in real-estate escrow funds under defendants’ control had disappeared.
- Intercounty retained Myron M. Cherry & Associates, LLC (a four-lawyer firm) on an hourly basis with expense reimbursement to defend the case.
- Intercounty fell far behind on payments, owing Cherry more than $430,000 in fees and costs.
- After discovery closed but before trial, Cherry moved for leave to withdraw, asserting continued representation would require advancing costs that could exceed $1 million.
- At a hearing, the district judge asked whether any party would be prejudiced by withdrawal; each party stated it would not.
- The district court denied Cherry’s withdrawal motion and later denied a renewed motion, reasoning the request was too late in the proceedings.
- Cherry filed an interlocutory appeal from the denial of its motions to withdraw.

## Issues

1. Whether an order denying an attorney’s motion to withdraw is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to allow withdrawal when the client was substantially delinquent and continued representation would impose extraordinary uncompensated burdens on a small firm without prejudice to the parties.

## Decision

- The court of appeals held it had jurisdiction because the order denying withdrawal qualified as an appealable collateral order.
- The court reversed, holding the district court abused its discretion by denying withdrawal.
- The case was remanded with directions consistent with allowing Cherry to withdraw.

## Legal Principles

- A denial of an attorney’s motion to withdraw may be immediately appealable when it conclusively determines counsel’s obligation to continue, is separate from the merits, and would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment.
- Trial courts have discretion to manage appearances and withdrawals, but that discretion has limits and must account for concrete prejudice and orderly case administration.
- Compelling continued representation can be an abuse of discretion where (a) the client is massively in arrears, (b) counsel faces extraordinary uncompensated costs and burdens, and (c) withdrawal would not materially prejudice the parties or disrupt the proceedings.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit treated the denial of withdrawal as an immediately appealable collateral order and held that forcing a small firm to continue costly representation for a severely delinquent client—absent demonstrated prejudice to the parties or the case schedule—was an abuse of discretion.


Fidelity Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Intercounty Nat'l Title Ins. Co., 310 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2002)