## Facts

- In a pending matrimonial action, Mary-Ann Kriegsman retained Rose, Poley, Bromley & Landers to replace prior counsel after obtaining substitution consent.
- The client paid $1,000 plus costs at retention and later paid an additional $1,000 plus an amount designated for costs.
- Over approximately 3.5 months, the firm performed extensive work, including numerous court appearances and substantial office preparation.
- The litigation was complicated by the husband’s pro se appearance, noncooperation, and refusal to comply with certain court orders.
- By early April 1976, the firm claimed significant time and fees had accrued and that disbursements had been incurred beyond amounts paid.
- The client was on public assistance and asserted she lacked funds to pay additional fees; she opposed withdrawal, arguing new counsel could not reasonably master a voluminous file on the eve of trial.
- The client maintained the firm accepted the case with knowledge of her limited resources, minimal marital assets, and the likelihood of a difficult matter.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying counsel’s motion to withdraw based on the client’s inability to pay additional fees.
2. Whether, given counsel’s prior knowledge of the client’s limited means and the case’s posture near trial, nonpayment justified withdrawal despite likely prejudice to the client and delay to the court.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the order denying the law firm’s application to be relieved as counsel.
- The court held the trial judge acted within discretion in requiring continued representation under the circumstances.
- The court accepted that allowing withdrawal shortly before trial in a complex, motion-intensive matter could materially prejudice the client and disrupt orderly case management.

## Legal Principles

- Once representation is undertaken, counsel’s ability to withdraw is constrained by professional duties to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the client.
- Nonpayment of fees may support withdrawal in some circumstances, but it does not create an automatic right to withdraw when withdrawal would likely harm the client or interfere with the administration of justice.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to deny withdrawal motions when substitution would delay proceedings or impose unfair hardship, particularly where counsel accepted representation with awareness of the client’s financial limitations and the matter’s expected difficulty.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld the denial of counsel’s withdrawal request, concluding that, given counsel’s prior knowledge of the client’s limited resources and the imminence and complexity of trial, the trial court reasonably prioritized preventing client prejudice and maintaining orderly proceedings over counsel’s asserted entitlement to withdraw for nonpayment.


Kriegsman v. Kriegsman, 150 N.J. Super. 474, 375 A.2d 1253 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1977)