## Facts

- A client retained a law firm under a contingent-fee agreement to prosecute a medical-malpractice claim, and an associate attorney at the firm filed suit and appeared for the client.
- The associate later left the firm and sought to withdraw, telling the client to obtain new counsel; the client was unable to secure replacement counsel.
- The trial judge ultimately allowed the associate to withdraw but found the contingent-fee agreement with the firm remained valid and the client wanted the firm to continue.
- Because the case was behind in discovery and required continued prosecution, the judge ordered the firm to continue representing the client and directed the firm’s named partner, Thomas M. Kiley, to file a personal appearance.
- Kiley asserted the agreement had been terminated or was being terminated by him, moved to vacate or reconsider, and then sought appellate relief after denial.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial judge may require a law firm that contracted for contingent-fee representation and appeared in the case to continue representation after the handling lawyer departs, despite the firm’s desire to withdraw.
2. Whether a trial judge may order a specific partner to personally file an appearance and represent the client to satisfy the firm’s continuing obligation.

## Decision

- The court held the trial judge did not abuse discretion in ordering the firm to continue representation under the existing contingent-fee agreement.
- The court held the judge erred in ordering Kiley personally to appear because the record did not support that Kiley undertook an individual obligation separate from the firm.
- The order was affirmed as to continuing firm representation and reversed as to compelling Kiley’s personal appearance.

## Legal Principles

- A law firm that undertakes contingent-fee representation and has appeared in litigation may not withdraw solely because the matter becomes unprofitable or inconvenient.
- Trial courts have discretion to regulate attorney withdrawal to protect client interests and the orderly administration of pending litigation, including requiring the firm to provide substitute counsel from within the firm.
- A court generally may not dictate which specific lawyer at a firm must appear for the client absent a valid, individualized basis (e.g., an existing personal appearance or a separate personal undertaking).
- Erroneous factual findings about an attorney’s individual contractual commitment cannot support an order compelling that attorney, personally, to enter an appearance.

## Conclusion

The decision distinguishes between a firm’s continuing duty to complete contingent-fee litigation it accepted and the limits of judicial authority to conscript a particular partner: the firm could be required to proceed, but the court could not require Kiley personally to appear without an individual obligation.


In re Kiley, 459 Mass. 645, 947 N.E.2d 1 (Mass. 2011)